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.
Forbes: NHL damaging revenue by disappearing from sports scene
I wrote a book on negotiation, “Winning With Integrity”, which emphasized a constructive process based on mutual interest, which would insure a “win-win” outcome. One of the important concepts was not to get so caught in the detail as to forget the ultimate goal of the negotiation—in this case maximizing NHL player and owner economics. What was needed here was a deadline, a willingness to commit to solution before the very length of the discussions led to economic self-destructiveness. PT Barnum’s maxim “The Show Must Go On” is relevant here. The NHL has never had the US exposure and popularity to provide maximum national or local television revenue or equal status with the other three high profile professional team sports. Every time hockey gains in popularity and geographical reach in this country, a harmful negotiating process comes along to stunt its growth by keeping the games from being played.
...
Another corollary of “Winning With Integrity” is that when there is a deadlock and parties think things can’t get worse–things can always get worse. The Players Association is contemplating decertification, just as the NFLPA did. This removes the forum from NLRB jurisdiction and moves the battle into the courtroom. Management cannot declare an “impasse” and institute their own rules and systems. The attorneys for the union can still negotiate. But the process will dramatically slow down and imperil the chance for a 2012-2013.
While the above poster indicated this was a "pro-player" bias, I disagree. The author does have an "agent"-type background, but the points he makes from his book matter regardless of which side you're on. (Unless you're looking for a scorched earth result.)
I do agree with his assertion that the NHL's revenue is discretionary income and the competitors are the other sports/college leagues, amusement parks, movies, theatres, performance organizations.
Of course it's damaging the revenues. This lockout is insane. It's not the least bit necessarry at all. I find it incredibly arrogant of them they are pulling this stunt.
They also know that the average fan isn't that bright and will be back, even if it takes them a couple years to forget.
But how come they can't understand that they have to work together in order to insure maximum profitability for themselves? Why does it have to be about beating each other? From the get go, both sides created a toxic environment between themselves instead of trying to work together. I don't think they will have $3.3 billion business during their next full season. This time they will lose money.
But how come they can't understand that they have to work together in order to insure maximum profitability for themselves? Why does it have to be about beating each other? From the get go, both sides created a toxic environment between themselves instead of trying to work together. I don't think they will have $3.3 billion business during their next full season. This time they will lose money.
The owners (Most of them) are legitimately losing money (Whether it's their own stupid faults or not) and the players are still pissed that the owners took them to the cleaners eight years ago, which is funny, because their salaries have doubled since then.
Both sides are clearly at fault, but what pisses me off is that the players know they're going to lose, and they continue to hold out anyways despite multiple warnings from guys like Recchi and Modano.
But how come they can't understand that they have to work together in order to insure maximum profitability for themselves? Why does it have to be about beating each other? From the get go, both sides created a toxic environment between themselves instead of trying to work together. I don't think they will have $3.3 billion business during their next full season. This time they will lose money.
The owners do. That's why Bettman has been preaching about having a partnership with the players. Oh wait, that was last time when they wanted the cap. My mistake.
You include the players here but do you really believe they had a choice?
Possible but the attendance after the last lockout was virtually the same wasnt it? Players objective should be to get the best possible deal while minimizing loss of games, not trying to get their way. Take the owner's deal structure and minimize the rollback effect by recouping money later should have been their focus all along.
Possible but the attendance after the last lockout was virtually the same wasnt it? Players objective should be to get the best possible deal while minimizing loss of games, not trying to get their way. Take the owner's deal structure and minimize the rollback effect by recouping money later should have been their focus all along.
The NHL roped people in with lower ticket prices in a lot of markets and having players start in PSA's telling the fans how much they appreciate them. Fans believed with this new cap that tickets would be affordable. They were for all of 1 year in some markets then it went back to status quo.
They also know that the average fan isn't that bright and will be back, even if it takes them a couple years to forget.
We aren't stupid. We just enjoy sports. Just because we don't pout and boycott when the game comes back, doesn't mean we're stupid. It means we aren't going to punish ourselves by boycotting what we enjoy.
While the above poster indicated this was a "pro-player" bias, I disagree. The author does have an "agent"-type background, but the points he makes from his book matter regardless of which side you're on. (Unless you're looking for a scorched earth result.)
I do agree with his assertion that the NHL's revenue is discretionary income and the competitors are the other sports/college leagues, amusement parks, movies, theatres, performance organizations.
Totally agree. I am absolutely pro owner but what is said in this article makes complete sense.
The NHL and PA have to enter into a real agreement where the health of the league is paramount. Where both sides aren't suspicious of getting screwed by the other, and realize that league health is imperative if BOTH sides are to profit from this business. A sick league hurts the players bottom lines, and as soon as they realize that the better.
The NHL roped people in with lower ticket prices in a lot of markets and having players start in PSA's telling the fans how much they appreciate them. Fans believed with this new cap that tickets would be affordable. They were for all of 1 year in some markets then it went back to status quo.
If fans didn't notice tickets prices are almost exclusively dictated by demand for them, then it's their own fault. Operation costs hardly matter in that decision, if people can't figure out why they pay $100+ for nosebleeders in Toronto but get free hotdogs and parking for $20 in Phoenix they're hopeless.
Totally agree. I am absolutely pro owner but what is said in this article makes complete sense.
The NHL and PA have to enter into a real agreement where the health of the league is paramount. Where both sides aren't suspicious of getting screwed by the other, and realize that league health is imperative if BOTH sides are to profit from this business. A sick league hurts the players bottom lines, and as soon as they realize that the better.
they had that chance when paul kelly was leading the PA........
The owners (Most of them) are legitimately losing money (Whether it's their own stupid faults or not) and the players are still pissed that the owners took them to the cleaners eight years ago, which is funny, because their salaries have doubled since then.
Both sides are clearly at fault, but what pisses me off is that the players know they're going to lose, and they continue to hold out anyways despite multiple warnings from guys like Recchi and Modano.
I tend to believe the owners are making money, maybe not through the team but through the arena and spinoff companies they may control, solely because they own the team. Certainly they have been making a killing by reselling their teams and probably have gotten huge tax breaks as well.
If they gave up that easily in life they never would have made it to the NHL in the first place. Weak.
That's why the players are so heavily criticized: they look on the cba negotiations not as a business negotiation but a struggle of the proletariat against the evil owners.
I find it ridiculous that players (a) make millions and will still make millions with the new cba (b) are doing a job they supposedly love and (c) are in a situation where their percentage of the pie clearly should be reduced for the health of the league, and yet (d) the working relations between the pa and league is worse than any other labour relationship I know of.
Is there any other business in the league is on the brink of its second year long lockout in 7 years?
The NHL roped people in with lower ticket prices in a lot of markets and having players start in PSA's telling the fans how much they appreciate them. Fans believed with this new cap that tickets would be affordable. They were for all of 1 year in some markets then it went back to status quo.
Bingo. Within 2 years, the ticket prices were more than before the lockout, and they have skyrocketed since. They will try this again.....rope the dopes and be back where they were quickly. I wish the WHA would come back. These clowns need some competition.
Both sides are clearly at fault, but what pisses me off is that the players know they're going to lose, and they continue to hold out anyways despite multiple warnings from guys like Recchi and Modano.
Just because they know they're going to lose, shouldn't mean they should just drop their pants and bend over. If they allowed that, in 5-7yrs time, there would be another lockout until they accepted 40% and one after that, and after that etc... at some point, fighting does make sense.
That being said, players need to accept a "reasonable" deal and just get on with it. The owners need to understand it's not the players responsibility to create a perfect system for the owners.
Surprisingly, I haven't missed hockey at all this year and I usually watch 150 games a year.
Just because they know they're going to lose, shouldn't mean they should just drop their pants and bend over. If they allowed that, in 5-7yrs time, there would be another lockout until they accepted 40% and one after that, and after that etc... at some point, fighting does make sense.
That being said, players need to accept a "reasonable" deal and just get on with it. The owners need to understand it's not the players responsibility to create a perfect system for the owners.
Surprisingly, I haven't missed hockey at all this year and I usually watch 150 games a year.
If the owners pushed for 40%, I would then be on the players side. Not going to happen. Hypotheticals.
If the owners pushed for 40%, I would then be on the players side. Not going to happen. Hypotheticals.
True it is a hypothetical however, I was replying to someone who suggested they just follow along with their offer and what Modano/Recchi suggested. If the players moved from 74% and took a cap (I heard 74% from Doug MacLean) to 57% (started at 54 but went up to 57) and if they didn't fight about it. Then accepted 50% and didn't fight about that either... if you were an owner, would you push for 45% or less the next time you could? I'm pretty sure I would.
I think a deal is there and needs to be done ASAP but I think just taking whatever you're offered when it's clear a lot of the terms are one sided, I think you have to fight back a bit.
If the owners pushed for 40%, I would then be on the players side. Not going to happen. Hypotheticals.
So if they go 50/50 and in seven years the weak sisters are still moaning about cost certainty and propose 45, and ge it why wouldnt they lock the players out and demand 40% ? After all this was 3 percent off of the leagues initial offer this time.
If the owners thought they could screw over the pa, you think they pause one second? Threelockouts in 8 years, with the pa caving ( so far) the owners know they can run their teams into the ground, then cry poor and demand that the players cover their markers (again) and if they players fil to capitulate then lock out a gogo.
I am pretty pro owner at least in this current dispute. But if they dip anything below 47% for the players now or in the future I am not supporting that. I didn't like the initial owner proposal but never believed it would come in near that. However, for future negotiations they better not coming asking for anything lower than that 47%. Why that number, I don't know seems close to the numbers I have seen thrown out for other sports and it gives the owners their share for investing the money. Any lower than that and I agree with the players sitting on principle.
I hope there is a sound argument in the book because the article was just vague fluff. I'll wait for more reviews before I pick that up, too tough to project his line of thought from one league to the others without some real strong analysis.
Friendly ManiBROba
