National Hockey League 2012-13

[The Panther]

In my opinion, the problem with the NHL is Gary Bettman's clear and unequivocal mandate to 'grow' the game in the southern United States. This is the root of the evil.

Every year, the NHL has to pay out of its pocket for poor-performing franchises. This is paid for by revenue-sharing since 2005 (a good idea, of course), but forcing the rich, high-revenue teams to continuously pay for poor-performing franchises that don't have a hope in hell (Hockey! in Nashville!) is just league-suicide. It was one thing to add a few franchises in the early 90s (I personally think 24 is about the max sustainable without lowering the quality of entertainment) in good markets like Ottawa. It was another thing -- a very stupid one -- to add franchises in Miami, Nashville, Phoenix, Atlanta (that's done now), etc.

Had the NHL not been so utterly stupid as to do this, I think the current problem would be less acute, because the potential shared revenues would be much higher per team, and everyone would be happier.

(This is not even to mention the stupidity of watering down the league with too many teams, or the league's making every team/franchise as generic as possible, thus robbing the identity of each city/team. The NHL was never better than in about 1985 to 1994 -- Bettman since then has increased revenues and simultaneously destroyed the game. Quite a double feat!! Did I mention that he allowed a lock-out to occur at the very moment of both New York City's and Los Angeles's winning championships, thus shooting his own career plan in the foot?)

 

[BoMac]

I would argue that some of the "non-traditional" U.S. markets have actually been quite successful, and I'd put Nashville in that category. Some of these things take time and, in the case of Nashville, it took a couple of playoff runs for it to really take hold.

But I wouldn't be opposed to contraction or moving some of the under performing franchises to more viable U.S. markets, perhaps Seattle and/or Kansas City.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Mike Modano: Lockout "wasn't worth it".

"Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it."

"It's money you feel you never get back. At some point, we were sold a bill of goods," he said. "Everybody was buying it. Everybody thought, 'Let's not let each other down. Let's do it for the future of the game. Blah, blah, blah.' You're only in the game so long."

"I would say (to them) that it's not a battle you're going to feel like you're going to win..."

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Bob McKenzie, TSN 690 Radio this morning.

-PA members he's spoken to believe 22 of 30 owners not in tune with Bettman's hard line and willing to strike a deal to play. Need 24 to override Bettman's diktat because of NHL bylaws.

-Owner he 's spoken to feels those numbers are reversed. (i.e: 22 of 30 owners stand firm behind Bettman's position. Only 8 owners willing to compromise).

Seriously? If situation A was the case, why would the voice of 23/30 NHL teams be vested in one man, only able to overturn with 24/30? That makes zero sense. At the very least, it should be 15/30 teams, if not even less. There should require 24/30 teams AGREE with their leader and representative before he is able to exercise power, not the compliment of that...

 

[PhilsFan]

The Coyotes are not long for Phoenix, that seems abundantly clear. To Seattle, perhaps?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Quebec City is my guess.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

And there's our batch of first cancelled regular season games -- through October 23rd.

 

[Danny Boy]

Quebec City is my guess.

Pffftt. Who would want to put a hockey team in Canada? And we actually have coyotes in the Seattle area, FWIW.

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

Well,Well,Well.A new offer from the owners gives a 50/50 slipt off the revenues.82 games season starting on November 2nd.Fehr saying a conference call with the players at 5pm.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/...ffers-players-50-50-split-of-revenue/related/

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Please please please please accept the offer!

I'm so glad to see someone caved. Fuck the stupid Players Association if they reject this.

 

[PhilsFan]

Cautious optimism. This offer, from the few details we have, sounds much more reasonable.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Aw, and I was looking forward to a year not watching the Leafs suck... Oh well.

 

[BoMac]

Saw this on Twitter:

A condensed 82-game schedule will place an even greater emphasis on backup goaltenders. It's a good thing the Maple Leafs have two of them.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Greedy bastards.

McKenzie: NHL proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm

Thought the players were in the right before? Hope you don't think so now. The NHL and Gary Bettman have done enough. So sick of the NHLPA crap. Going around making stupid little sob story videos. Meanwhile the NHL is down to business. The PR is all on the league's side right now, the players look mighty greedy.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

What the hell made you so anti-player?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

As of yesterday, in regards to money, this is no longer an NHL lockout. It's an NHLPA holdout.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Ok so lets say you have a job paying you $50,000 a year which you negotiated in good faith. Business is doing well, your company is making more profits than it has ever before but your boss comes back to you and says they want to renegotiate your contract and reduce your pay going forward to $46,500. You are telling me you are completely fine with this and you are just going to go along with it without any kind of protest?

 

[BoMac]

Not to mention that the 50/50 split offered by the NHL is a little misleading and was created, in my view, to swing the public's support its way. Judging by Lucky's reaction, it's working.

I mean, on the surface it looks like a fair deal, but the devil's in the details.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Agreed, Im not even saying 50/50 is bad. I'm assuming they will probably end up there but to just roll over and take it with little or no push back sets a terrible precident for any future labor negotiations.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Ok so lets say you have a job paying you $50,000 a year which you negotiated in good faith. Business is doing well, your company is making more profits than it has ever before but your boss comes back to you and says they want to renegotiate your contract and reduce your pay going forward to $46,500. You are telling me you are completely fine with this and you are just going to go along with it without any kind of protest?

Not all NHL teams operate at a big gain. Coming from a fan of a team that operates at a loss and only stays afloat due to its parent company, I'm not seeing an issue in why the players should not receive a majority of the share of revenue.

But I'm sure as hell not going to sit on my ass and pout about a pay cut and make stupid little PR videos to try and gain support from bystanders.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Not to mention that the 50/50 split offered by the NHL is a little misleading and was created, in my view, to swing the public's support its way. Judging by Lucky's reaction, it's working.

I mean, on the surface it looks like a fair deal, but the devil's in the details.

Misleading? The NHL disclosed all the details. It's not misleading. The NHL has basically caved from their end of the stubbornness and gave a little, and the PA is crossing their arms with a big old frown on their face.

 

[BoMac]

Do you think this proposal came out of thin air? They likely had this deal in their back pocket for a long time, waiting for the right time to submit it.

Plus, how did they cave? It's a standard negotiating tactic - ask for a lot, and then meet in the middle. Except in this case, the middle is what the NHL wanted all along (on par with the NBA and NFL revenue split) and the NHLPA will have to just accept a 7% reduction in salaries.

And they're not just splitting the revenue 50/50, they NHL also wants to alter the definition of "hockey-related revenue". Add to that term limits on contracts, extending UFA status, and limits on individual salary increases from year-to-year and there's a lot not to like from the players end.

Negotiations are give and take.

 

[PhilsFan]

Misleading? The NHL disclosed all the details. It's not misleading. The NHL has basically caved from their end of the stubbornness and gave a little, and the PA is crossing their arms with a big old frown on their face.

Did you miss my rather long post earlier in the thread about how the revenue sharing they are talking about is not all of the revenue, that it's leaving out quite a bit of a revenue that is a 100-0 split in favor of the owners?

It's absolutely misleading. Any person who has tried to compare it to the revenue splits in other professional sports league is a person who has been misled.

 

[PhilsFan]

Not all NHL teams operate at a big gain. Coming from a fan of a team that operates at a loss and only stays afloat due to its parent company, I'm not seeing an issue in why the players should not receive a majority of the share of revenue.

But I'm sure as hell not going to sit on my ass and pout about a pay cut and make stupid little PR videos to try and gain support from bystanders.

A team that operates at a loss is either:

A) Run by incompetents.
B) Located somewhere it should not be located.

Is there another answer here?

And I have no idea why the PR videos bother you so much. I myself have just ignored them, because who gives a damn? They're part of the deal. The owners are hiring PR people with the money they claim they don't have.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Lol oh yeah I forgot, a team is only worthy to grace the league under the former conditions, and thus the former conditions justify the existence of certain teams...

Or maybe that's the point of re-negotiation here? So everything can be justified...

 

[bono_man2002]

Who cares, lets just hope there is some hockey not too far away!

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

When you've painted yourself into a corner,the only way to get out of that corner is to walk on the paint.That's exacly what the owners did with the last proposal.And it is what the players should do with their counter proposal.And for those who are saying negotiating a new CBA it's a give and take,Where's the giving on the players side so far.

The mandat of Fehr and Bettman it's to get a deal done,not "who's going to win this CBA fight".

 

[BoMac]

And for those who are saying negotiating a new CBA it's a give and take,Where's the giving on the players side so far.

Owners offered a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue and one of Donald Fehr's first comments on the proposal was that it was "an excellent starting point." The players would be losing 7% from the last CBA, or at least $210 million, which is a pretty big give from their side, in my opinion. Fehr not dismissing the 50-50 split out of hand means that it will most likely be part of the final agreement.

There are other things in the owners' proposal, like unrestricted free agency, and contract term limits, that the players would like improvement on, and that's where most of the negotiations will focus on in the next few days.

 

[bono_man2002]

 

[bono_man2002]

All games cancelled through November 1st.

Somebody please think of the children.