HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Do you think the owners really want to cancel the season?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2004, 02:18 PM
  #1
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Do you think the owners really want to cancel the season?

I just can't see a bunch of shrewd businessman who've made their fortunes in other various business ventures consider cancelling an NHL season, and cancelling the Stanley Cup Playoffs for the first time since 1908. This league is dead in most parts of the US, and if the season is cancelled, the NHL may never recover from losing even more exposure in the states.

How many owners want to cancel the season? I'd be interested to know if the big revenue teams want the season cancelled. The US is a crucial, and imperative market for the NHL, right now, the NHL doesn't need a lengthy lockout or an extended labor dispute, what is needed, is a return to the game with adept new marketing strategies, and an attempt at a profitable television deal. Cancelling the season is a slap in the face to the fans, especially if the owners respond with a hard salary cap counter-proposal, and refuse to even negotiate what the players had proposed.

I know the players offer was more directed at PR than anything else, although the league has to give something now as well. The players did make concessions, and that is a good thing to see, whether or not they were systemic are an issue, however in return for the players concessions, its the owners turn to concede a bit.

Taking all of this into account, do you think the owners really have what it takes to cancel the season? What effect will cancelling the season have on yourself and fans in general? Will the game survive in the US if the season is cancelled?

struckmatch is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:45 PM
  #2
Jazz
Registered User
 
Jazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Jazz
Quote:
Originally Posted by puck you
I just can't see a bunch of shrewd businessman who've made their fortunes in other various business ventures consider cancelling an NHL season, and cancelling the Stanley Cup Playoffs for the first time since 1908. This league is dead in most parts of the US, and if the season is cancelled, the NHL may never recover from losing even more exposure in the states.
Agreed - to much damage will be done by canceling the season.

btw - small correction: the last Stanley Cup cancellation was in 1919 in the middle of the Montreal - Seattle Stanley Cup Final (with the series tied) and death of Canadiens forward Joe Hall due to the Spanish Influenza epidemic.

Jazz is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:47 PM
  #3
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
It's hard to imagine that the league would cancelle the season with what is on the table. I'm sure that the NHL can come up with a system that both side can live with.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:56 PM
  #4
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 39,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
It's hard to imagine that the league would cancelle the season with what is on the table. I'm sure that the NHL can come up with a system that both side can live with.
what is on the table? we remain where we were last week. owners want a salary cap...and say they require one to move forward. players say they will not discuss a salary cap. that has not changed.

txpd is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:50 AM
  #5
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
The owners are prepared to pay the short-term cost cancelling a season would bring. Whether they do or not will depend on the players willingness to address the systemic changes needed. The size of the bribe just offered by the PA tells us that they are completely wed to the previous flawed system and that the likelyhood of a season is minimal.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:29 AM
  #6
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The owners are prepared to pay the short-term cost cancelling a season would bring. .
Short term costs are easy.

No one knows the long-term costs. No one knows how much it costs the game if the season is lost and the Cup isn't raised.

It took baseball years of steroid therapy to win back its fans. ANd baseball is the American pastime.

In many AMerican markets, hockey doesn't have enough fans to win back.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:44 AM
  #7
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
They don't WANT to cancel it but they may be FORCED to do it. Huge difference there.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:52 AM
  #8
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Owners? Nope


Bettman- YES, and buttman runs the show. He does not care how long this takes as long as he gets his cap.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:54 AM
  #9
Boilers*
 
Boilers*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
Actually it was 1919 that the cup wasn't awarded due to a flu epidemic,and wasn't that about the last time the Bsox won the world series? Here we are with a flu shot epidemic,The Sox have won....it doesn't bode well.

Boilers* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:28 PM
  #10
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
You're forgetting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by puck you
How many owners want to cancel the season? I'd be interested to know if the big revenue teams want the season cancelled. The US is a crucial, and imperative market for the NHL, right now, the NHL doesn't need a lengthy lockout or an extended labor dispute, what is needed, is a return to the game with adept new marketing strategies, and an attempt at a profitable television deal. Cancelling the season is a slap in the face to the fans, especially if the owners respond with a hard salary cap counter-proposal, and refuse to even negotiate what the players had proposed.

I know the players offer was more directed at PR than anything else, although the league has to give something now as well. The players did make concessions, and that is a good thing to see, whether or not they were systemic are an issue, however in return for the players concessions, its the owners turn to concede a bit.

Taking all of this into account, do you think the owners really have what it takes to cancel the season? What effect will cancelling the season have on yourself and fans in general? Will the game survive in the US if the season is cancelled?
That any reduction in Revenues the NHL suffers will be passed onto the players through a reduction in salaries. If TV money drops from what ABC paid, 125 million to person to a meager 30 million per season, salaries are going to have to relect that. Same goes with sponsorship dollars. So, the players very much have a huge stake in a cancelled season.

As for Marketing and TV.... Come on, be realistic. The NHL is a very regional sport. I don't expect the southern states to care that much about hockey. States like Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. may not have pro sports, but they grew up with Football, Baseball, Basketball and thus they will follow it on tv. Most haven't seen more than 1 hour total of hockey in their lifetime.

I've been a hockey fan all my life, but I'm having trouble maintaining my interest in the league lately because the quality of the game has dropped. No goals, defensive hockey, big goalie equipment, interference, weak suspensions on blows to the head, etc. are not things that you can promote.

Look at the NFL that past decade and what they have done to address their issues.

1) Kickoffs were moved back 5 yards so that the returning would catch the ball just in front of the goal line instead of taking a knee in the end zone to create more excitement.
2) QBs could throw the ball away if they get outside the tackles, thus keeping the most important player on the team healthy
3) Major penalty for a blow to the head, even if it's just a glancing blow
4) Great camera angles. They have a camera that sits in the end zone that can zoom into the QB's eyes, even if he's at midfield. Plus that new camera they have on that rope that hovers above the field. That's awesome.

Hockey isn't a product that you can sell to a person once. It's something that you need the customer to return and want more of it. Right now, it's not a product that if introduced to new customers, would have them coming back for more.

The NHL has to fix the following IMO:

1) goalie equipment
2) call the interence and tell the players and coaches to zip it when those calls are made.
3) try to eliminate as many whistles that slow the play down, like the icings, forward/dman shooting the puck out on purpose, holding the puck along the boards for a faceoff, falling on the puck for a whistle.
4) get tough on blows to the head with much much longer suspensions in the teen to twenty range, whether it's an elbow, shoulder, forearm. The hit Stevens delivered to Lindros, in the NFL would have gotten Stevens a 15 yard major for a blow to the head, but in the NHL cause he lead with a forearm/shoulder it was deemed legal. Even blows that are not directed at the head, but cause the player's head to hit the ice or boards should be penalized. Like Tkachuk in the World Cup in the round robin game against the Russians where he hit Gonchar late in the game up high at his shoulders forcing him to hit the glass with his head should be penalized severely and suspended.
5) Reduce the roster size to eliminate guys who can't play the game the way it was meant to be played. dress 18 players a game, not 20.
6) get better camera angles, especially for the nets cause sometimes even on replays you have a hard time of seeing where the puck is.
7) To evaluate the Refs better, have each one wear a helmut with a small camera mounted on the logo area of the helmut so that the NHL front office can really determine if the refs missed calls. The Umpire in the NFL ( the guy who stands where the LB's lineup has one mounted to his cap )

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:36 PM
  #11
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Owners? Nope


Bettman- YES, and buttman runs the show. He does not care how long this takes as long as he gets his cap.
Owners are 100% behind Bettman for the first time in a long time. So they too want it fixed, and don't care how long it takes. As some owners are saving money during this lockout, rather than losing lots and lots.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:39 PM
  #12
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
I don't think the owners want to cancel the season, but I think that they are prepared to do it...

That's my feeling, and I think that Goodenow feels the same thing - thus, presenting the offer he did... I fully expected that there would be no significant offer on the table this year...

IMO, Goodenow provided something that is worthy of further discussion... which is more than I thought would happen this year...

A strong threat can be as (or more) effective than actually following through... I think that the strong threat has done it's job - there is now a starting point...

I'd be very disappointed if the NHL doesn't provide a counter offer skewed to their favour using the NHLPA's proposal as a starting point...

Cancelling the season now at this point, is IMO, unnecessary... Fair enough if the NHLPA fails to entertain a significant luxury tax %, but if they are, IMO, there is no good excuse for no hockey this year...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:49 PM
  #13
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Short term costs are easy.

No one knows the long-term costs. No one knows how much it costs the game if the season is lost and the Cup isn't raised.

It took baseball years of steroid therapy to win back its fans. ANd baseball is the American pastime.

In many AMerican markets, hockey doesn't have enough fans to win back.

that is why the NHL must get a connection of revenue in this CBA, that way it does not matter the long term effects of this lockout because both the owners and players will share the burden as well as split it

don't forget Bettman only needs 8 votes from owners to continue the lockout

lets count who is still on Bettmans side for certain

Penguins
Caps
Canes
Panthers
Sens
Nucks
Kings
Ducks
Lightning
Bruins
Sabres
Preds
Thrashers
Blue Jackets
Sharks
Flames
Oilers
Wild
Blackhawks
Yotes

likea is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:52 PM
  #14
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
that is why the NHL must get a connection of revenue in this CBA, that way it does not matter the long term effects of this lockout because both the owners and players will share the burden as well as split it
What new burden are the owners picking up?

Ken Dryden for Commissioner (or did he get elected to parliament?)

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:11 PM
  #15
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
What new burden are the owners picking up?

Ken Dryden for Commissioner (or did he get elected to parliament?)
are you serious???

with out a link to revenues the owners will pick up the loss in revenues

the NHLPA's contracts are guaranteed, therefore they will get their money

likea is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:28 PM
  #16
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
I'd be very disappointed if the NHL doesn't provide a counter offer skewed to their favour using the NHLPA's proposal as a starting point...
It is not in the NHL's best interests to bargain off of the players proposal. They should present a cost certainty CBA and negotiate based on it.
.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:36 PM
  #17
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
It is not in the NHL's best interests to bargain off of the players proposal. They should present a cost certainty CBA and negotiate based on it.
.
Doesn't a luxury tax of 100:1 at $30 million do the same thing as the NHL's hard cap proposal? If so, then why isn't it in the NHL's best interest to bargain off of the player's proposal?

The end result is the same...

Not being able to come to a conclusion using the player's proposal as the starting point is one thing... Ignoring the player's proposal all together is another...

The first scenario is excusable to me... The second scenario isn't...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:37 PM
  #18
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
ughghhhh this is the same Rikster from Fanhome. SIck.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:42 PM
  #19
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
Doesn't a luxury tax of 100:1 at $30 million do the same thing as the NHL's hard cap proposal? If so, then why isn't it in the NHL's best interest to bargain off of the player's proposal?

The end result is the same...

Not being able to come to a conclusion using the player's proposal as the starting point is one thing... Ignoring the player's proposal all together is another...

The first scenario is excusable to me... The second scenario isn't...
I'm not suggesting at some point it wouldn't be in the owners best interest to switch to a luxury tax position, just that that time hasn't arrived yet. They need to see what kind of progress they can make in getting the players to agree to a deal based on their terms after they present it on Tue.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:53 PM
  #20
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
I'm not suggesting at some point it wouldn't be in the owners best interest to switch to a luxury tax position, just that that time hasn't arrived yet. They need to see what kind of progress they can make in getting the players to agree to a deal based on their terms after they present it on Tue.
If the owners come back on Tuesday with a cost certainty CBA, the season is toast. The players won't give anymore until they also see the owners willing to give and actually negotiate.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:57 PM
  #21
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=likea]

lets count who is still on Bettmans side for certain

Penguins
Caps
Canes
Panthers
Sens
Nucks
Kings
Ducks
Lightning
Bruins
Sabres
Preds
Thrashers
Blue Jackets
Sharks
Flames
Oilers
Wild
Blackhawks
Yotes


i strongly question why these teams would not support a 24% reduction in salary + the games beginning over a lengthy and ugly work stoppage. unless of course their mandate all along was something other than what they claimed.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:04 PM
  #22
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
If the owners come back on Tuesday with a cost certainty CBA, the season is toast. The players won't give anymore until they also see the owners willing to give and actually negotiate.
If the owners present a counter offer on Tue. as promised, they are negotiating. Whether it contains cost certainty is irrelevant in determining if they are "actually negotiating."

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:08 PM
  #23
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
If the owners present a counter offer on Tue. as promised, they are negotiating. Whether it contains cost certainty is irrelevant in determining if they are "actually negotiating."
Not if their counter offer is essentially the same as one of their 6 "offers" previosuly made. If their new proposal hasn't moved substantially off of their 6 paragraphs previously submitted the season will be cancelled by Christmas.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:10 PM
  #24
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
If the owners present a counter offer on Tue. as promised, they are negotiating. Whether it contains cost certainty is irrelevant in determining if they are "actually negotiating."
well, if i wanted to negotiate to buy your car from you and was offering only my Metallica music collection. YOu would rightly come back and tell me you will never accept my music collection in trade. If I then came back with a proposal that still included my music collection, could you say i was negotiating ?

hey, if you dont want to sell me your car, you dont have to. if the NHL does not want the current members of the NHLPA on the ice, they dont have to change their negotiating stance either.

the owners have not moved one bit off of their "ideolgy" since day 1 and the players have. its clear who is negotiating and who isnt.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:11 PM
  #25
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
If the owners present a counter offer on Tue. as promised, they are negotiating. Whether it contains cost certainty is irrelevant in determining if they are "actually negotiating."
in fairness, if the owners came to the table with a 70m hard cap offer, id consider that negotiating. if they come back with a 32m cap and other severe changes, then its clearly not negotiating, simply bullying becuase they feel they can.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.