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.
Bettman wanted to talk in Nov 2011, however Fehr said they were not ready to talk. And both sides are responsible, as it takes two sides to come to an agreement. We all knew there would be a lockout if there was no CBA in place. You can blame it on Bettman all you want... but it takes two to tango.
I haven't heard that Bettman wanted to start that early, but it has been reported in Nov 11 that the NHL wanted 48-50% and contracting rights, and wouldn't settle for anything less (or more in this case). Even then, everyone knew that the players' option would be accept that, among other things, or get locked out.
I haven't heard that Bettman wanted to start that early, but it has been reported in Nov 11 that the NHL wanted 48-50% and contracting rights, and wouldn't settle for anything less (or more in this case). Even then, everyone knew that the players' option would be accept that, among other things, or get locked out.
This is a 'Lockout First' league.
When was the last league to enter into a season without a CBA?
The NHL did ask the PA in Nov 11, and in Jan 12, and in June 12. The PA's only interest was in dragging this out as long as possible.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
The PA waited until the last minute to make an offer at all, and even then, it was an incomplete offer.
They can accept 50% immediately and the loss of points on many contracting rights important to them, or get locked out. There was never any other option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide
When was the last league to enter into a season without a CBA?
The NHL did ask the PA in Nov 11, and in Jan 12, and in June 12. The PA's only interest was in dragging this out as long as possible.
When did the NFL CBA expire? The NBA's? The NHL's?
Another response, taking a different form of trying to make my point. There are two ways, as I see it, of looking at what has transpired here, and both can easily be given a positive spin but with a negative result.
1) The League allowed its ego to get the best of it, and resulting from that it allowed the mentality that it could offer players much higher salaries and benefits in general than what the League could actually support. That again is not to say that the League has in any way been doing poorly on the economic front, but that it has over-extended itself in player costs.
Or
2) That the League simply didn't anticipate its own strong growth, which obviously is a positive, and as such it created an economic structure that ended up giving the players too much of the economic pie and starving many of the owners.
Either way you look at it though, the NHL has been doing just fine; it's just that it hasn't managed it's gains very well.
We know the NHL players are paid well for, as a whole, being the best on the planet. Many try to tell us that the owners are these brilliant guys with superior business acumen... not a bunch of shady weasels.
However, I look at it similarly to you. Either
A) The NHL didn't have the collective business acumen to properly assess what % of revenue going to salaries would allow the owners as a whole to make a fair collective profit. That doesn't say much for their allegedly superior business skill does it?
and/or
B) The cap/floor structure combined with revenues increasing so rapidly led to the bigger teams making a lot more anticipated, while many of the smaller teams may have actually lost money.
What one can't convince me of is that all of the following are true:
1. The owners as a collective have superior business skills.
2. Rapidly increasing revenues with salaries at a fixed % of revenue will decrease the total profit for the owners as a group.
3. The owners couldn't redistribute what should be a larger collective profit more equitably to allow the smaller teams to be more competitive and profitable, instead of asking for more concessions from the players.
So it basically comes down to this: Are the owners, on average, stupid, crooked or both?
We know the NHL players are paid well for, as a whole, being the best on the planet. Many try to tell us that the owners are these brilliant guys with superior business acumen... not a bunch of shady weasels.
However, I look at it similarly to you. Either
A) The NHL didn't have the collective business acumen to properly assess what % of revenue going to salaries would allow the owners as a whole to make a fair collective profit. That doesn't say much for their allegedly superior business skill does it?
and/or
B) The cap/floor structure combined with revenues increasing so rapidly led to the bigger teams making a lot more anticipated, while many of the smaller teams may have actually lost money.
What one can't convince me of is that all of the following are true:
1. The owners as a collective have superior business skills.
2. Rapidly increasing revenues with salaries at a fixed % of revenue will decrease the total profit for the owners as a group.
3. The owners couldn't redistribute what should be a larger collective profit more equitably to allow the smaller teams to be more competitive and profitable, instead of asking for more concessions from the players.
So it basically comes down to this: Are the owners, on average, stupid, crooked or both?
Hiring someone with reasonably good economic skills would have produced models that showed them what would happen under positive growth with the CAD; and reasonable growth in the markets where you'd expect it.
This too wouldn't lend itself to supporting the superior business acumen hypothesis either.
Dates. When their respective CBAs expire. When did their respective lockouts start?
A quick online search, shows that although the NFL extended the CBA by 8 days, they still locked out the players at the expiration of the CBA. One of the key differences is that the NFL training camp didn't start the following week. Had the NHL attempted this, players would have been in camp by the time the league locked out the players. If anything, of the 3 leagues, the NHL had more reasons to lock out the players than either of the other 2 leagues.
The NBA locked their players out the moment the CBA expired. NBA's training camp starts in Sept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBA Timeline
The league announces that it will lock out the players when the CBA expires at midnight. Lockout begins at 12:01 a.m. on July 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFL Timeline
•March 3: Hours before an 11:59 p.m. ET deadline for expiration of the CBA, the two sides agree to a 24-hour extension.
•March 4: The two sides reach agreement on a seven-day extension of the CBA (deadline of March 11 at 11:59 p.m. ET).
•March 11: NFL locks out the players after the expiration of the CBA at 11:59 p.m. ET.
But good job trying to show that the NHL is somehow different than the other leagues in locking the players out.
A quick online search, shows that although the NFL extended the CBA by 8 days, they still locked out the players at the expiration of the CBA. One of the key differences is that the NFL training camp didn't start the following week. Had the NHL attempted this, players would have been in camp by the time the league locked out the players. If anything, of the 3 leagues, the NHL had more reasons to lock out the players than either of the other 2 leagues.
The NBA locked their players out the moment the CBA expired. NBA's training camp starts in Sept.
But good job trying to show that the NHL is somehow different than the other leagues in locking the players out.
You left an important date. When did the NHL CBA expire?
You left an important date. When did the NHL CBA expire?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSN - NHL Timeline
Sept. 15 - With no further meetings planned at the time and no significant progress, the CBA expires and the NHL locks out its players.
And NHL training camps generally start mid/late Sept. In 2011 St Louis's camp (first link I found on when training camp starts) started on Sept 16th.
So again, I'm curious as to what your point is. The NBA's CBA expired in July, and the league locked out the players when the CBA expired - even though their season didn't start until Sept. The NFL's CBA was extended 8 days, however at the end of that 8th day (March 11th), the NFL locked out the players, even though their season didn't start until July.
Yet you're implying that the NHL somehow acted differently or rather more harshly when you say they're a "lockout first league". Even though of the 3 leagues theirs was the only one that was about to get under way without a CBA in place if the league didn't lock the players out.
Best I can say, is I have little intend of purchasing anything outside of Centre Ice, but yes, this is a love/hate relationship. Give me a series like Montreal and Vancouver's recent runs and I'll pretend the lockout never happened. Those were too amazing to pass watching. I tend to believe everyone feels that way about their team, at least as far as the "superfan" is concerned.
Would anyone be upset if the KHL came to North America?
I honestly don't care one bit about whether my team is in the NHL or not as long as they can compete with and against the best players in the world to win the Stanley Cup.
In regards to supporting the NHL, everybody knows that corporate money, not general fan support is what the NHL really cares about. Since my corporation can't buy buy tickets to the Canucks right now, we have free drink nights with clients at steak houses instead. There is no guarantee that we will go back to the Canucks.
In the US, for the price of a box you could become a secondary sponsor of a Nascar team which allows a lot of opportunity to get business done. It costs more because you need to fly people to events but it definitively makes a bigger impression as the interaction is a lot higher.
Hiring someone with reasonably good economic skills would have produced models that showed them what would happen under positive growth with the CAD; and reasonable growth in the markets where you'd expect it.
Yah. It's really hard to put together growth models when you have decades of data upon which to draw, right?
I'm still completely baffled as to how these guys missed the effect of counting up all HRR and using that as the basis for what every team is forced to spend. I just shake my head.
I disagree with his view. The NHL is not doing this to the fans, they are doing what they need to do to survive financially. In fact, they are doing this FOR the fans - without significant changes, many teams people cheer for will not exist.
Fans who are offended, make me shake my head. Be offended at the players - every one of them is making good money. They are driven by greed, 18 NHL teams are driven by survival.
With a significant stoppage, many fans that keep vulnerable teams afloat at all may disappear.
We can't forget that there are inevitably more "superfans" in Toronto and Montreal because following those teams is a big cultural thing there. Even if the superfan is disillusioned by the lockout, cultural and interpersonal factors can bring that fan back.
The superfan in Nashville doesn't have that same pull back to the game, and neither does the casual fan. If you don't follow the Preds there, it doesn't mean anything to anyone. They're more vulnerable to push/pull type factors like lockouts (pushing away) and other local teams getting good (pulling away).
It doesn't matter what CBA anybody gets if there's almost nobody to watch the game in some cities.
