Does the NHL have the following in the USA that baseball does?
This is pretty much it, without parity, you get what you get in the NBA, only about 5 or 6 markets mattering. That works fine for the NBA because that sport is ingrained in the culture and really is more about the players then the teams, but it would kill the NHL.
no there isn't and baseball doesn't have the following that it once did, not even close actually... there have been a LOT of articles about it over the past few years if you read popular sports websites/magazines
no there isn't and baseball doesn't have the following that it once did, not even close actually... there have been a LOT of articles about it over the past few years if you read popular sports websites/magazines
Ya, its actually a shame becuase if you look at results it actually has enough parity. Small market teams have managed to win. However, the vast majority of fans just give up and realize it is the Yankees vs the Red Sox.
Agian, if you are looking at what model has succeeded. THere is no question the NFL has done by far the best. It isn't clear that the game has gotten any better. American's clearly have loved Basketball and Baseball in the past. It seems that the average sports fan does love the parity of the NFL.
First of all there is no union, there is, as we all know, an association. I make this distinction due to standard differences in those bodies.
I'm not convinced what you are stating is accurate either and that the Owners would not have any ability post cap to run a league as they see fit. But even granting your position is it possible still, that the CEO could make binding decisions then that fall on the owners that still want to be in the business. Could Bettman impose some conditions consistent with what the league collectively was wanting before the decertification? He had their clear operative consent.
I think one of the reasons this is foggy is we don't have (to my knowledge) a clear applicable precedent. I don't agree that Soccer is that precedent.
Anyway, until we know more this is probably a moot discussion.
I'm with you on this Replacement, The NHL is a league and should be able to set its own procedures which all the clubs would have to follow in order to be apart of the league. It'd be funny if the players decertify then the owners all decide that they will no longer have guaranteed contracts and will be paid on incentive based contracts. I think the owners could really stick it to the players if they decertify. But theres no precedence for it here in Canada so it would be hard to say what would happen.
I'm with you on this Replacement, The NHL is a league and should be able to set its own procedures which all the clubs would have to follow in order to be apart of the league. It'd be funny if the players decertify then the owners all decide that they will no longer have guaranteed contracts and will be paid on incentive based contracts. I think the owners could really stick it to the players if they decertify. But theres no precedence for it here in Canada so it would be hard to say what would happen.
The owners could condition any contract in any way shape or form.
Incentives, non-guaranteed, player bonuses, community involvment clauses, and on and on..but how much leverage would they have in competing for the best players in the world when there is market scarcity?
almost zero
The big fish contacts would be extensively one-sided towards the players
If the Union is to de-certify then I can almost guarantee that some of the broke small market teams will fold, causing massive amounts of players to lose their jobs.
If the Union folds it will go against everything they have said they stand for. It will be solely for the benefit of the marquee players and will do nothing to help the next generation of players.
if the union is to de-certify then i can almost guarantee that some of the broke small market teams will fold, causing massive amounts of players to lose their jobs.
If the union folds it will go against everything they have said they stand for. It will be solely for the benefit of the marquee players and will do nothing to help the next generation of players.
If the Union is to de-certify then I can almost guarantee that some of the broke small market teams will fold, causing massive amounts of players to lose their jobs.
If the Union folds it will go against everything they have said they stand for. It will be solely for the benefit of the marquee players and will do nothing to help the next generation of players.
Isn't this what the union appears to be standing for all along? They are trying to "break" the NHL teams and get them to sign an agreement that almost guarantees teams fold and the lesser players are out of jobs. The NHLPA is only looking out for the elite players. They clearly could care less about the lower end guys. I don't know why every player that stands to lose their job if the bottom end teams fold aren't screaming at Fehr to sign a deal now.
I doubt if the union is serious about decertifying. The reality is the owners have all the power right now. The only power the union has is mutually assured destruction caused by decertification.
This is an empty threat. It seemed to work in the recent bball negotiation so Fehr is trying to convince the owners he would do the same thing.
Ya, its actually a shame becuase if you look at results it actually has enough parity. Small market teams have managed to win. However, the vast majority of fans just give up and realize it is the Yankees vs the Red Sox.
Agian, if you are looking at what model has succeeded. THere is no question the NFL has done by far the best. It isn't clear that the game has gotten any better. American's clearly have loved Basketball and Baseball in the past. It seems that the average sports fan does love the parity of the NFL.
I actually used to be a huge MLB and NBA fan. When it was clear parity was not what they were looking for, I stopped watching and started following the NFL. If the NHL had not brought parity in the last CBA, I would have stopped watching as well. If they ever don't try to maintain the level of parity they have now, I will stop.
If the Union is to de-certify then I can almost guarantee that some of the broke small market teams will fold, causing massive amounts of players to lose their jobs.
If the Union folds it will go against everything they have said they stand for. It will be solely for the benefit of the marquee players and will do nothing to help the next generation of players.
Canada + USA is roughly equal in size to the populations of England, France, Italy, Spain and Germany
The premier leagues in those 5 countries have 98 teams
The argument that there would be less jobs under decertification is silly.
I'm again not advocating one system over the other.
Does any reasonable person think there would be less than 3 teams in Toronto under a free system, Montreal, Philly, New York??
I doubt if the union is serious about decertifying. The reality is the owners have all the power right now. The only power the union has is mutually assured destruction caused by decertification.
This is an empty threat. It seemed to work in the recent bball negotiation so Fehr is trying to convince the owners he would do the same thing.
How is mutually assured destruction??
Please explain how worse players would be under a totally open economic system.
And I'm not taking sides, just interested in how people think that somehow decertification = armageddon
Does any reasonable person think there would be less than 3 teams in Toronto under a free system, Montreal, Philly, New York??
wait - if the PA decertifies that's one thing. But that doesn't stop the NHL from mandating which teams are in which city. The NHL still has control who joins the ownership - and in that situation there would still be only one team in Toronto.
Canada + USA is roughly equal in size to the populations of England, France, Italy, Spain and Germany
The premier leagues in those 5 countries have 98 teams
The argument that there would be less jobs under decertification is silly.
I'm again not advocating one system over the other.
Does any reasonable person think there would be less than 3 teams in Toronto under a free system, Montreal, Philly, New York??
And in those 5 countries about what 80% of the population watches soccer? If the NHL had those kind of viewership numbers it wouldn't even be a problem. Why does everyone keep comparing the NHL to these marquee leagues. The NHL needs to be compared to MLS and NLS more so than to the NFL, MLB, NBA and EPL.
Please explain how worse players would be under a totally open economic system.
And I'm not taking sides, just interested in how people think that somehow decertification = armageddon
the process will take over 1 year so this year and next year would be lost. Players have an average nhl career of less than 5 years and all would lose two years.
When they come back, it wold be a complete open market with fewer teams. It is a complete loss for the players.
I have no doubt some hard line owners would welcome this scenario. It wold be a good business move for a number of teams
wait - if the PA decertifies that's one thing. But that doesn't stop the NHL from mandating which teams are in which city. The NHL still has control who joins the ownership - and in that situation there would still be only one team in Toronto.
The problem is, creating exclusive geographic markets is collusive behaviour and can be challenged under antitrust law, should the floodgates open after decertification. The NHL constitution is not going to be immune.
Balsillie has attempted this argument before with no success when trying to move to Hamilton. His lack of success wasn't because the argument had no merit, but because Baum found that it was a little premature to proceed with antitrust claims.
It is a long way down the road and you would have to find an owner willing to relocate a team to the GTA and pay the extremely expensive legal fees. However, I think it is a very winnable case given enough time and money.
Canada + USA is roughly equal in size to the populations of England, France, Italy, Spain and Germany
The premier leagues in those 5 countries have 98 teams
The argument that there would be less jobs under decertification is silly.
I'm again not advocating one system over the other.
Does any reasonable person think there would be less than 3 teams in Toronto under a free system, Montreal, Philly, New York??
Are you seriously equating interest in soccer in Europe to interest in hockey in the US? The argument that there would be less jobs under decertification is not silly at all. At least half a dozen teams in the US are barely surviving now. With no hockey for 1 to 2 years while the legal process takes its due course, combined with most of those teams basically being farm clubs to the rich teams, if they survive at all, it is a very real possibility that there will be less jobs for players, and very likely the median salary will be lower than it currently is.
And in those 5 countries about what 80% of the population watches soccer? If the NHL had those kind of viewership numbers it wouldn't even be a problem. Why does everyone keep comparing the NHL to these marquee leagues. The NHL needs to be compared to MLS and NLS more so than to the NFL, MLB, NBA and EPL.
I'm interested in seeing your figures that show the Premier leagues in Europe get 80% viewership for their games
I'm interested in seeing your figures that show the Premier leagues in Europe get 80% viewership for their games
Seriously? Obviously I was just making an open statement. Basically what I was saying is EPL viewership kicks the **** out of even the NFL's. So, if you are really that dense that you need to respond like that, I'll put it in terms that even a slow mongoloid could understand.
In 2003, stats show that in the Peoples Republic of China, EPL games were attracting anywhere between 100 million and 360 million viewers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3207829.stm There is my source.
The NHL could never even fathom those numbers. 28,000 people in the Phoenix region watched their Coyotes play game 3 of the playoffs against the Red Wings last year on TV. 28,000! Hell the most watched game in the states last year (Winter Classic) drew 900,000 viewers.
So you could basically portray the EPL as an Elephant and the NHL as a gnat.
If he loved the game so much he'd be playing right now trying to stay in game shape. Instead he realizes that if he were to get hurt, bye-bye 3.5mil.
Except I believe he would get the 3.5 Million regardless of his injury? Players still get paid if injured, and if the lockout ends, he would still be under contract, no? An injury in the KHL at his age could end his career, I wouldn't criticize someone nearing 40 years old for not playing during a lockout--is there anyone his age that is playing over seas? This post presumptive in so many ways. I believe he said he wants NHL hockey to start again so that he doesn't waste one of his last chances to win a stanley cup. I would like to see you call him out on all of these things (based off such small ancedotes) to his face.
Personally my strategy if I was the NHLPA would have been to accept a 50%-50% split of HRR revenues... if that's fair and equitable in the eyes of the NHL (which it seems to be and what their bottom line proposal likely was all along). All the rest was posturing and smoke.
My condition though if I was the NHLPA would be that the 30 teams split all team revenue in exactly 30 equal amounts as well. That way you insure all teams are viable financially and there are no "weak" fringe teams. The salary cap can also be tightened up considerably under that format as well... something as small as a 5%-10% gap between ceiling and floor so parity is further enhanced league-wide.
The only differentiators then between teams would be how well managed/coached they all are... and none would be working from a compromised and uncompetitive position.
That would effectively end all current and future league arguments that most teams are losing money... take away that argument by sharing the teams slice of the pie 30 equal ways. All the teams are in this together so they should all profit and lose together as well.
Unpopular proposal obviously for the most profitable teams.. but so be it... for the "greater good" of the NHL it's a fair proposal and insures that the players get an equal split of the revenues... and on the other side of the coin... each of the teams all get an equal split as well.
Personally my strategy if I was the NHLPA would have been to accept a 50%-50% split of HRR revenues... if that's fair and equitable in the eyes of the NHL (which it seems to be and what their bottom line proposal likely was all along). All the rest was posturing and smoke.
My condition though if I was the NHLPA would be that the 30 teams split all team revenue in exactly 30 equal amounts as well. That way you insure all teams are viable financially and there are no "weak" fringe teams. The salary cap can also be tightened up considerably under that format as well... something as small as a 5%-10% gap between ceiling and floor so parity is further enhanced league-wide.
The only differentiators then between teams would be how well managed/coached they all are... and none would be working from a compromised and uncompetitive position.
That would effectively end all current and future league arguments that most teams are losing money... take away that argument by sharing the teams slice of the pie 30 equal ways. All the teams are in this together so they should all profit and lose together as well.
Unpopular proposal obviously for the most profitable teams.. but so be it... for the "greater good" of the NHL it's a fair proposal and insures that the players get an equal split of the revenues... and on the other side of the coin... each of the teams all get an equal split as well.
This is even more of a slap in the face to the fans of teams like Edmonton, Vancouver, Toronto etc then the current system is.
If I'm paying exorbitant ticket prices to watch hockey, I'd at least like to have the illusion that I'm not completely subsidizing some non-hockey markets.
Seriously? Obviously I was just making an open statement. Basically what I was saying is EPL viewership kicks the **** out of even the NFL's. So, if you are really that dense that you need to respond like that, I'll put it in terms that even a slow mongoloid could understand.
In 2003, stats show that in the Peoples Republic of China, EPL games were attracting anywhere between 100 million and 360 million viewers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3207829.stm There is my source.
The NHL could never even fathom those numbers. 28,000 people in the Phoenix region watched their Coyotes play game 3 of the playoffs against the Red Wings last year on TV. 28,000! Hell the most watched game in the states last year (Winter Classic) drew 900,000 viewers.
So you could basically portray the EPL as an Elephant and the NHL as a gnat.
Who the #$%^ is saying the two leagues are equal??
Nobody
You're point was a free market set up isn't realistic in the NHL because 80% of Europe watches soccer??
Exactly how the size of viewership, popularity or revenue of any particular league applies as an argument against a free system, I'm not sure, but keep throwing it out there attached with whatever number seems fun for your argument.
