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.
Well, it also didn't hurt that the NHLPA back then was effectively run by pro-owner cronies. Pretty easy to be smoothly run when you're dealing with compliant labor.
Plus, they had their fair share of expansion/relocation/contraction/merger issues under Ziegler as well.
Sure Ziegler had a more easy ride with Eagleson on the other side but their partnership lead to great things too from Canada Cups to Rendez-Vous 87 and so forth, those generated a lot of money. Ever since Bettman took over the whole league has become a more cold and corporate operation and less of a friendly meeting of hockey minds like it once was. He's to the NHL what Michael Eisner was to Disney. An efficiant businessman but not everything has to be a war and confrontational and done for the green(expansions for the national tv deal, etc...). The fans feel this stuff too. Ideally the guys from both sides representing the PA and the league would be guys that would do things for the good of the league and the players, doing business in good faith. Not taking extreme angles(from financial positions to how the game is played, etc...). I think someone like Paul Kelly would make a great NHL commish, I think.
He did not overexpand the game. I know there is some snobbery over southern US teams but imo that just stems from bitterness and jealousy over the Cups they have won.
but lets be frank here. Bettman was hired to make the league grow into a major US sport. He has done so wonderfully.
1. The sport itself is growing in non traditional areas. A prime reason that the U18 US team is starting to dominate. Btw, its only going to get worse for Canada from here out. Soon the US will dominate u18 and the olympics year in and year out.
2. League just signed a massive TV deal.
3. League is getting some mainstream US attention.
4. It takes time and slow growth to establish roots.
You cannot grow a professional sport in the USA with only have northern cities. [MOD]
Bettman is an outstanding commish. I hope hes around another 20 years.
What a bunch of baloney. Are you related to Bettman?
The USA Hockey youth clubs are winning and improving because of better processes and coaching. It has zero to do with expansion into other markets.
Massive TV deal? Really? What is the value of the NFL/NBA/MLB TV deals again? OLN/Versus/NBC Sports netwok? Yeah...brilliant! Unfortunately, the lack of revenue from covering media is one of the major reasons that the games have priced out most families. Te NHL's revenues come from ticket sales.
How about game rules that change every few months? How about a completely uneven and unpredictable Shanahan enforcement program? Really, the old-boy way the NHL is run is an embarrassment.
Add in 3 lockouts during his term, and he needs to go ASAP. Only the greatness of the game itself has kept it from being wrecked by this little man.
How about game rules that change every few months? How about a completely uneven and unpredictable Shanahan enforcement program? Really, the old-boy way the NHL is run is an embarrassment.
Have you seen the NFL? You just described them in spades.
Massive TV deal? Really? What is the value of the NFL/NBA/MLB TV deals again? OLN/Versus/NBC Sports netwok? Yeah...brilliant! Unfortunately, the lack of revenue from covering media is one of the major reasons that the games have priced out most families. Te NHL's revenues come from ticket sales.
The TV Deal he signed is by far the largest in NHL history.
And the fact that the NHL is a gate driven League is why Bettman (and the owners) want a TV deal. So they can change that.
The TV Deal he signed is by far the largest in NHL history.
And the fact that the NHL is a gate driven League is why Bettman (and the owners) want a TV deal. So they can change that.
And yet, the Canadian deals due up in 2014 will likely surpass it.
The NBC deal is a solid deal, but don't make it out to be something it is not. It isn't the TV deal the owners were looking for when they ditched traditional markets in favour of an American "national footprint."
And yet, the Canadian deals due up in 2014 will likely surpass it.
Good for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn
The NBC deal is a solid deal, but don't make it out to be something it is not. It isn't the TV deal the owners were looking for when they ditched traditional markets in favour of an American "national footprint."
You are correct. The NHL owners were most likely looking for a deal that the NFL has- big enough that all 30 teams are profitable and revenue sharing is obsolete.
You don't get that deal staying a regional sport. If the NHL continues to grow through the duration of their current deal (like if NBCSN begins to compete with ESPN), then they could set themselves up for a big time deal.
He did not overexpand the game. I know there is some snobbery over southern US teams but imo that just stems from bitterness and jealousy over the Cups they have won.
but lets be frank here. Bettman was hired to make the league grow into a major US sport. He has done so wonderfully.
1. The sport itself is growing in non traditional areas. A prime reason that the U18 US team is starting to dominate. Btw, its only going to get worse for Canada from here out. Soon the US will dominate u18 and the olympics year in and year out.
2. League just signed a massive TV deal.
3. League is getting some mainstream US attention.
4. It takes time and slow growth to establish roots.
You cannot grow a professional sport in the USA with only have northern cities. [MOD]
Bettman is an outstanding commish. I hope hes around another 20 years.
This is the funniest thing I have read all day, especially your claim about jealousy over Cups won, thanks for the laugh.
You are correct. The NHL owners were most likely looking for a deal that the NFL has- big enough that all 30 teams are profitable and revenue sharing is obsolete.
You don't get that deal staying a regional sport. If the NHL continues to grow through the duration of their current deal (like if NBCSN begins to compete with ESPN), then they could set themselves up for a big time deal.
Could.
Or NBC Sportsnet could fail. Or NHL ratings flatline. Or NFL, MLB, and NBA revenue growth continues to increase at a faster rate than the NHL. All possibilities, among numerous others.
Two decades on from Bettman's hiring, should the debate really centre around "could"?
Or NBC Sportsnet could fail. Or NHL ratings flatline. Or NFL, MLB, and NBA revenue growth continues to increase at a faster rate than the NHL. All possibilities, among numerous others.
Two decades on from Bettman's hiring, should the debate really centre around "could"?
Sure. Because the things that still "could" happen under Bettman are several dimensions better than the outlook when Bettman was hired
And many things have already happened that NHL fans are quick to take for granted.
Or NBC Sportsnet could fail. Or NHL ratings flatline. Or NFL, MLB, and NBA revenue growth continues to increase at a faster rate than the NHL. All possibilities, among numerous others.
Two decades on from Bettman's hiring, should the debate really centre around "could"?
So because we might fail, we should just restrict ourselves to aedequate profits and limited impact as a niche sport?
Sorry, you don't become rich with that line of thinking.
This is the funniest thing I have read all day, especially your claim about jealousy over Cups won, thanks for the laugh.
This brings up an interesting point. We're all of you *****in' about southern markets when Tampa bay and Carolina won their Stanley Cups? I'm just curious.
As for Bettman, I've hated the little SOB since he changed the names of the divisions and conferences. After the Thrasher's scam, it will be a bad day for him should he ever find himself alone in a room with me.
Bettman isn't as bad as he has been made out to be, that being said, he's not as good as some think either...the game has grown from 400M in revenue to 3.3B under his watch, so give credit where credit is due...but honestly the expiration date on his tenure is up, time for a new face to run the league...
Also, it must be time for Fehr to run over to the NBA or NFL, isn't it?
Read the book Net Worth written by a canadian investigative reporter 15 yrs ago.It was made into movie starring Al Waxman.The team owners were making millions of dollars and players were ignorant of what was happening excluding people like Lindsay.The book brought many legal suits.Now to the present players are set for life their working conditions are second to none.The players salaries have gone up 400 percent
This brings up an interesting point. We're all of you *****in' about southern markets when Tampa bay and Carolina won their Stanley Cups? I'm just curious.
As for Bettman, I've hated the little SOB since he changed the names of the divisions and conferences. After the Thrasher's scam, it will be a bad day for him should he ever find himself alone in a room with me.
Personally I don't care that he expanded into certain markets such as California.
However, Tampa Bay was around before Bettman as was San Jose.
My problem with Bettman and expansion is that as Commish he should have known what rapid expansion was going to do to the on Ice Product.
Tampa, Ottawa and San Jose were all pre-Bettman (hired in 02/01/93)
The league should have waited at least 6-8 years before expanding again. Allow the talent pool to build back up.
throw another 3 teams in there and wait another 6-8 years before expanding again.
The fact is, the dead puck era was born out of Rapid expansion as teams were coached not to lose games as opposed to coaching to win games. There's a HUGE difference.
Bettman should have known what would happen when you spread the limited talent the NHL already had at the time so thin.
As it was, they added 6 teams over an 8 year span under Bettman.
There's nothing that anyone can tell me that increasing the NHL by 25 over that short a period of time was not going to hurt.
Take that a step further and the % increase over a 10 year span is almost 43%
what we had was the most boring period of Hockey the game has ever experienced from 1995 to 2004 and it almost killed the game.
I do not get this concern about the talent pool. The talent pool is not the problem in this league, and has not been a problem in decades.
The real issue is a problem people have with certain styles of play, especially defensive system play like the trap system and the 1-3-1. These systems can be played by any talent level but are associated with low talent levels because low talent teams try to use them to maximize their chance of winning.
The issue here is that fans like scoring, and defensive systems stifle scoring. And, so goeth the abysmal logic, because defensive systems became popular over a period of time, and untalented teams are known to resort to system play to minimize their weaknesses, it must follow that all the teams that played defensive systems were poor in talent.
The logic has the disadvantage of being absolute poppycock, but other than that, it's a perfectly legitimate argument.
Personally I don't care that he expanded into certain markets such as California.
However, Tampa Bay was around before Bettman as was San Jose.
My problem with Bettman and expansion is that as Commish he should have known what rapid expansion was going to do to the on Ice Product.
Tampa, Ottawa and San Jose were all pre-Bettman (hired in 02/01/93)
The league should have waited at least 6-8 years before expanding again. Allow the talent pool to build back up.
throw another 3 teams in there and wait another 6-8 years before expanding again.
The fact is, the dead puck era was born out of Rapid expansion as teams were coached not to lose games as opposed to coaching to win games. There's a HUGE difference.
Bettman should have known what would happen when you spread the limited talent the NHL already had at the time so thin.
As it was, they added 6 teams over an 8 year span under Bettman.
There's nothing that anyone can tell me that increasing the NHL by 25 over that short a period of time was not going to hurt.
Take that a step further and the % increase over a 10 year span is almost 43%
what we had was the most boring period of Hockey the game has ever experienced from 1995 to 2004 and it almost killed the game.
Yet according to everyone it seems, the talent is at an all-time high per team with European players flooding in. I suspect the truth is in between those two extremes, that the level of expansion kept par with the level of European influx and the talent per team is essentially the same as the 1980s.
The bottom line is there are a number of other dynamics at work creating the Dead Puck Era that has nothing to do with expansion.
This brings up an interesting point. We're all of you *****in' about southern markets when Tampa bay and Carolina won their Stanley Cups? I'm just curious.
As for Bettman, I've hated the little SOB since he changed the names of the divisions and conferences. After the Thrasher's scam, it will be a bad day for him should he ever find himself alone in a room with me.
I don't know about these guys specifically, but yeah, there was a whole lotta wailing and gnashing of teeth going on. Especially with the SCF being against Calgary and Edmonton.
I do not get this concern about the talent pool. The talent pool is not the problem in this league, and has not been a problem in decades.
The real issue is a problem people have with certain styles of play, especially defensive system play like the trap system and the 1-3-1. These systems can be played by any talent level but are associated with low talent levels because low talent teams try to use them to maximize their chance of winning.
The issue here is that fans like scoring, and defensive systems stifle scoring. And, so goeth the abysmal logic, because defensive systems became popular over a period of time, and untalented teams are known to resort to system play to minimize their weaknesses, it must follow that all the teams that played defensive systems were poor in talent.
The logic has the disadvantage of being absolute poppycock, but other than that, it's a perfectly legitimate argument.
I do not get this concern about the talent pool. The talent pool is not the problem in this league, and has not been a problem in decades.
The real issue is a problem people have with certain styles of play, especially defensive system play like the trap system and the 1-3-1. These systems can be played by any talent level but are associated with low talent levels because low talent teams try to use them to maximize their chance of winning.
The issue here is that fans like scoring, and defensive systems stifle scoring. And, so goeth the abysmal logic, because defensive systems became popular over a period of time, and untalented teams are known to resort to system play to minimize their weaknesses, it must follow that all the teams that played defensive systems were poor in talent.
The logic has the disadvantage of being absolute poppycock, but other than that, it's a perfectly legitimate argument.
Of course, those defensive systems exploit loopholes in the rules and are as such a monkey wrench thrown into the cogs of the game. The solution is to adjust the rules to make those monkey wrenches impossible. That's how the NFL handles situations like that: Whenever some coach comes up with something that upsets the competitive balance of the game the NFL almost immediately bans it.
Any chance we'll soon be seeing the end of Gary Bettman? Negotiations seemed to pick up this week once Gary Bettman was removed from the bargaining table.
You might have valid point if you hadn't forgotten who made the suggestion to remove Bettman AND Fehr from the negotiating table.
