The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
KHL teams want to keep Ovechkin, Kovalchuk rather than return 'em to NHL?
So you didnt read or comprehend the 4 paragraphs because they disproved your contention and you dont want to admit it?
Everyone foresaw it. BUt more than that, its moot because it was not the primary cause of revenue disparity or the reason Bettman is on his 3rd lockout.
Leafs, habs, and canucks increasing revenues hurts Tampa if they cut back Tampas revenue sharing and then complain the players need to take a paycut because the system is broken, yes, agreed.
yes, but it was an informal agreement and can end at any time if either side wishes.
You are correct. Now let's play a game called, what does the IIHF, NHL, Hockey Canada and Hockey USA do as a response to the KHL/Russian Federation cancelling the MOU and letting players play with current NHL contracts?
What happens to Olympic participation? What happens to WC participation? What happens to the IIHF making millions off having the WJHC in Canada/Northern US? What happens in International Law?
If the KHL teams of Ovechkin and Kovalchuk want to keep them once the lockout is over and they have said how they won't return if they get their salaries cut. I sure hope they don't mind not playing for Russia in the 2014 Olympics since they won't be allowed under the IIHF rules.
The rise in the Canadian dollar only played a small role in the overall growth of the NHL since the last lockout. The NHL simply put overlooked a massive flaw in the system they designed coming out of the last lockout.
I was looking for something from a business reporter or economist from, I don't know, Forbes in 2005, not something a hockey beat writer said in 2012.
His math is sketchy as well. The difference between Canadian teams' revenue under 2005 vs 2012 exchange rates is 155 million, or a little under 5% of overall revenues. Not the .7 % number he comes up with.
Just due to exchange rates and no other factors related to a rising dollar that could drive the revenues of Canadian teams up (such as more spending power by the consumer-base that comes with a currency rise, more corporate spending, etc), the cap floor gets inflated by $3 million. Pegging those other factors, conservatively, at another $3 million in revenue inflation and 9 teams are red that would have been black if this unpredicted currency fluctuation did not occur.
The only teams that would be losing meaningful money had the canadian dollar not unexpectedly risen are Columbus and Phoenix.
So you didnt read or comprehend the 4 paragraphs because they disproved your contention and you dont want to admit it?
Everyone foresaw it. BUt more than that, its moot because it was not the primary cause of revenue disparity or the reason Bettman is on his 3rd lockout.
Leafs, habs, and canucks increasing revenues hurts Tampa if they cut back Tampas revenue sharing and then complain the players need to take a paycut because the system is broken, yes, agreed.
If, in 2005, "Everyone foresaw" that the Canadian dollar would rise from 80 US cents to 1 US dollar, I find it incredibly strange that you are unable to cite anybody saying anything like that at the time.
If you want to "disprove" anything, you don't need a meandering, meaningless bunch of text walls.
All you need to do is give me a citation of ANYBODY making such a prediction at the time, which you can't.
You are correct. Now let's play a game called, what does the IIHF, NHL, Hockey Canada and Hockey USA do as a response to the KHL/Russian Federation cancelling the MOU and letting players play with current NHL contracts?
What happens to Olympic participation? What happens to WC participation? What happens to the IIHF making millions off having the WJHC in Canada/Northern US? What happens in International Law?
Nada. Nothing.
Perhaps the IIHF could ban the players from international competition, but I doubt they'd have the guts to do that. Ban Ovechkin from the Olympics in Russia? Oh yeah, that's going to go down well.
International law? What, is Bettman going to go to the UN?
What is Hockey Canada and Hockey USA going to do? As far as I can tell, they don't have anything to do with whether a Russian player honors his contract or not.
And if the NHL could do something about it, they would. Absent a transfer agreement, they have nothing.
Would be kind of ironic for Ted Leonsis. He'd lose his golden goose after pissing him off with these negotiations. (Since Ted part of the NHL negotiating group)
Ted would not only lose Ovechkin, but Verizon Center would return to being me and 7,500 other people every night.
Perhaps the IIHF could ban the players from international competition, but I doubt they'd have the guts to do that. Ban Ovechkin from the Olympics in Russia? Oh yeah, that's going to go down well.
International law? What, is Bettman going to go to the UN?
What is Hockey Canada and Hockey USA going to do? As far as I can tell, they don't have anything to do with whether a Russian player honors his contract or not.
And if the NHL could do something about it, they would. Absent a transfer agreement, they have nothing.
There's already an entire thread on this that was filled with much more intelligent and reasoned responses. However it seems as if bigger picture thinking might be lacking in this post.
The IIHF will face untold pressure from the NHL to suspend these players from International competition. Keep in mind that it's not a given that NHL players will attend as it's up for negotiation. I'd be shocked if there wasn't a provision put into the new CBA that NHL players can go provided NHL contracts are honored. I don't know how it would be worded but I'm sure it will be in there. And while the Russian Federation only has an MOU with the NHL, I'm fairly certain there are transfer agreements between the NHL and other national federations. Might get a little dicey if the NHL refuses to let all the other countries players from going.
And if you don't think that the NHL has a lot of influence within Hockey Canada and Hockey USA.....They can threaten to only hold the WJHC if Russia is not allowed to play. There are several things they can do if they choose to. Depends how much pressure there would be.
And the internation law comment is simply juvenile. I will admit that I don't know much about it however I do know it's not a simple situation.
There's already an entire thread on this that was filled with much more intelligent and reasoned responses. However it seems as if bigger picture thinking might be lacking in this post.
The IIHF will face untold pressure from the NHL to suspend these players from International competition. Keep in mind that it's not a given that NHL players will attend as it's up for negotiation. I'd be shocked if there wasn't a provision put into the new CBA that NHL players can go provided NHL contracts are honored. I don't know how it would be worded but I'm sure it will be in there. And while the Russian Federation only has an MOU with the NHL, I'm fairly certain there are transfer agreements between the NHL and other national federations. Might get a little dicey if the NHL refuses to let all the other countries players from going.
And if you don't think that the NHL has a lot of influence within Hockey Canada and Hockey USA.....They can threaten to only hold the WJHC if Russia is not allowed to play. There are several things they can do if they choose to. Depends how much pressure there would be.
And the internation law comment is simply juvenile. I will admit that I don't know much about it however I do know it's not a simple situation.
You clearly don't know much about it. It is a simple situation. There is no international law covering contracts. There are things like trade agreements, but that certainly wouldn't apply here.
The NHL could argue that it breaks Russian law and would have to sue the KHL in Russian courts. Good luck with that. Of course, they could also sue in US court. They probably win. Win what? Nothing. They'd have zero ability to enforce.
If Hockey Canada or Hockey USA boycotted international play because a Russian didn't honor his contract with an NHL team.. well... haha, nope, not going to happen. World doesn't work that way, sorry. Those associations aren't there to solve contract disputes between professional leagues. They are there to further the sport of hockey in their respective countries, not be puppets for the NHL.
The IIHF might get snippy, and precedent says that they should ban the player from international play. But with the Olympics coming up in Russia, and the NHL always being wishy washy about participation.. I'd bet that this one doesn't go the NHL's way.
I find it funny that you claim to have been engaging in intelligent discussion elsewhere but admit that you don't actually know what you're talking about re: international law. Maybe stick to what you know when you're making arguments, huh?
Actually, reading up on Radulov, the IIHF initially suspended him from international play, but then lifted the suspension because they had no authority to do so.
Maybe if we try a 3rd time. Its moot - its not the cause of the lockout
How about we try a 5th time. Cite me ANYTHING to support your statement that "everybody foresaw" the Canadian dollar would rise 20 cents against the US dollar dated to 2005. You keep saying it and keep failing to produce a single shred of evidence to back it up.
And again, this rise put nine teams in the red that would not have been in the red had it not happened. That's a full third of the league. You really think a third of the league losing money instead of making it isn't a cause for those owners wanting to reduce costs in the next agreement?
Actually, reading up on Radulov, the IIHF initially suspended him from international play, but then lifted the suspension because they had no authority to do so.
This was discussed at length a few weeks ago in the following thread.
To summarize if a player did decide to break his NHL contract and if the KHL was willing to terminate the MOU then the player could almost certainly stay in Russia.
However the IIHF`s rules are pretty clear and that player would almost certainly be barred from playing in Sochi. The IIHF rewrote its Transfer Regulations after the Radulov incident and all its members including Russia, Canada and the US are bound by the new rules. The new IIHF Transfer Regulations specifically recognize NHL contracts and state that players who break them will be suspended from IIHF competitions. Also the IIHF Transfer Regs are not dependent on the MOU between the NHL and KHL, in other words terminating the MOU would not terminate or change the Transfer regs.
Basically the only way someone like Ovi could break his NHL contract and still play in the next Olympics would be if Washington agreed to it and I can`t see that happening.
The IIHF obviously wants the NHL to participate in their tournaments so I`m sure the NHL had some input on these new regs. There are links to the regs and other docs in the thread I posted above if you are interested in reading further.
To summarize if a player did decide to break his NHL contract and if the KHL was willing to terminate the MOU then the player could almost certainly stay in Russia.
However the IIHF`s rules are pretty clear and that player would almost certainly be barred from playing in Sochi. The IIHF rewrote its Transfer Regulations after the Radulov incident and all its members including Russia, Canada and the US are bound by the new rules. The new IIHF Transfer Regulations specifically recognize NHL contracts and state that players who break them will be suspended from IIHF competitions. Also the IIHF Transfer Regs are not dependent on the MOU between the NHL and KHL, in other words terminating the MOU would not terminate or change the Transfer regs.
Basically the only way someone like Ovi could break his NHL contract and still play in the next Olympics would be if Washington agreed to it and I can`t see that happening.
The IIHF obviously wants the NHL to participate in their tournaments so I`m sure the NHL had some input on these new regs. There are links to the regs and other docs in the thread I posted above if you are interested in reading further.
Well, that puts a whole new wrinkle into the debate. I wasn't aware that the IIHF had changed regulations. Chose wisely Ovi Wan Kenobi
As much as the KHL would love to keep these guys, I think the Sochi Olympics has as much if not more to do with suggestions they remain at home. You can't tell me guys like Ovie, Kovalchuk and Malkin aren't under subtle or even overt pressure to stay in Russia and be better prepared and acclimatized for the Games. Winning a gold in Sochi after going 0-for-4 in best-on-best Olympics so far is the only goal in Russian hockey right now.
As much as the KHL would love to keep these guys, I think the Sochi Olympics has as much if not more to do with suggestions they remain at home. You can't tell me guys like Ovie, Kovalchuk and Malkin aren't under subtle or even overt pressure to stay in Russia and be better prepared and acclimatized for the Games. Winning a gold in Sochi after going 0-for-4 in best-on-best Olympics so far is the only goal in Russian hockey right now.
As per the IIHF's Transfer Regulations it is almost certain that these guys would be blocked from participating in the next Olympics if they broke their NHL contracts so if they want to increase Russia's chances of winning honouring their contracts is probably the safest route.
Well, that puts a whole new wrinkle into the debate. I wasn't aware that the IIHF had changed regulations. Chose wisely Ovi Wan Kenobi
Yup, the IIHF, IOC, FIFA and most sports regulatory bodies fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and ultimately the Swiss legal system. They could always try breaking their contracts and appealing the IIHF suspension but it would be taking a huge risk. FIFA seems to have even tighter controls over player movement as well as frequent player transfers and their rules have stood up so I would say it is unlikely the IIHF's would be over ruled.
