2025-2026 NHL Offseason

Jason P

Week 4 Standings:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8567798/2012-2013-nhl-season-week-4-simulation

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Actually DURP has a good point...why don't the players give the owners 50/50 of all outside endorsements? If the player were really serious as well they would propose doing away with guaranteed contracts...even if they allowed teams to rid themselves of 2 guaranteed contracts a year I think they might get a deal done. Too many overpaid players in the NHL.

The players want too make millions...but don't want too share in the risk.

a contract is a contract ... why won't the nhl honour their contracts? ... and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more ...

look at the owner of the oilers ... he epitomizes what's wrong with the owners ... the guy is making a killing yet he wants the taxpayers to fund everything ... these owners just want more and more ... if you give them something ... they just take and take without giving anything back ...

give me 1 item in their proposal that is good for the players ... just 1 ... it's all about the players giving and giving ... with nothing in return ...

Poor babies...must be tough working in sweat shop environment...how do they do it? just how do they cope? how do they get by? I don't support either side...its millionaires fighting billionaires...at the end of the day its the owners league...most if not all have other business interest...these hockey teams are more or less a hobby to them, a billionaires hobby . Most of these players this is their skill...their free too leave and play elsewhere if they can find other leagues willing to overpay them.

Yes a contract a contract...the NFL survives without guaranteed contracts, so can these NHL players.

It'll be cold day in hell before I ever throw my support behind athletes making millions...because if it wasn't for hockey they'd be making a fraction of what they do today.

lukin2006

Jason P wrote:

Week 4 Standings:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8567798/2012-2013-nhl-season-week-4-simulation

Those standings are a farce Montreal at 9-2, Toronto at 6-2

keeponrockin

Heat and Celtics last night made me kind of forget about the NHL.

MayDay10

polaris_x wrote:

players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...

I suspect that a lot of the players signed long term deals over the past few years because they knew this was coming and were planning on drawing the line there and hope to win public support (those were the contracts they signed!) and not be affected by any CBA changes. Just look at all the 6-year deals signed this past Summer.

I would be very surprised that a typical NHL contract doesnt include language that subjects it to the terms and conditions of the current and future labor agreements, so in a sense, a rollback is part of the contract.

I could see the argument that the owners will take and take, so next time they will reduce it to 45% and so on... But thats not the case right now. 50/50 is on par with other (much more successful) leagues and the NHLPA enjoys those great guaranteed contracts. I dont think this is unreasonable at all.

WTS, I do think the NHL can move toward common ground with the existing contracts.

keeponrockin

MayDay10 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...

I suspect that a lot of the players signed long term deals over the past few years because they knew this was coming and were planning on drawing the line there and hope to win public support (those were the contracts they signed!) and not be affected by any CBA changes. Just look at all the 6-year deals signed this past Summer.

I would be very surprised that a typical NHL contract doesnt include language that subjects it to the terms and conditions of the current and future labor agreements, so in a sense, a rollback is part of the contract.

I could see the argument that the owners will take and take, so next time they will reduce it to 45% and so on... But thats not the case right now. 50/50 is on par with other (much more successful) leagues and the NHLPA enjoys those great guaranteed contracts. I dont think this is unreasonable at all.

WTS, I do think the NHL can move toward common ground with the existing contracts.

I think if the owners signed the contract, they should pay it. Grandfather them into the new CBA if you will.

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...

I suspect that a lot of the players signed long term deals over the past few years because they knew this was coming and were planning on drawing the line there and hope to win public support (those were the contracts they signed!) and not be affected by any CBA changes. Just look at all the 6-year deals signed this past Summer.

I would be very surprised that a typical NHL contract doesnt include language that subjects it to the terms and conditions of the current and future labor agreements, so in a sense, a rollback is part of the contract.

I could see the argument that the owners will take and take, so next time they will reduce it to 45% and so on... But thats not the case right now. 50/50 is on par with other (much more successful) leagues and the NHLPA enjoys those great guaranteed contracts. I dont think this is unreasonable at all.

WTS, I do think the NHL can move toward common ground with the existing contracts.

I think your probably right that the owners have an out in many of those contracts. I wonder if these players know how lucky they are...so many of them are just pampered babies.

MayDay10

polaris_x wrote:

and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more

This is not true.

2/3 of the league lost money. Only 6 teams made anything you could consider a "killing"... and 4 of those are Canadian cities helped by their surging dollar since 2004.

Places that lost money in 'ill-conceived' markets include:
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Winnipeg, St Louis, Minnesota, LA, Washington, and San Jose.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/

Its bad for business when they have trouble getting owners to invest in the league.

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more

This is not true.

2/3 of the league lost money. Only 6 teams made anything you could consider a "killing"... and 4 of those are Canadian cities helped by their surging dollar since 2004.

Places that lost money in 'ill-conceived' markets include:
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Winnipeg, St Louis, Minnesota, LA, Washington, and San Jose.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/

Its bad for business when they have trouble getting owners to invest in the league.

I don't how true this is...I read the 7 Canadian teams account for 1 billion of the 3.3 billion (or whatever the revenue is).

And another point that should be made...why should Montreal (example) revenue share with Tampa...so the dedicated fan in Montreal has to pay 120 a ticket so some casual fan in Tampa can pay 20 a ticket...thats ridiculous.

Why doesn't Gomez share his salary with a union brother in Tampa instead .

MayDay10

in the past CBA they had criteria that receiving teams had to meet such as market size (no NYI), they had to sell a certain amount of tickets, increase pricing a %, etc. I think they are doing away with that.

I do believe that revenue sharing is necessary (as is player salary % reduction). The Montreals didnt complain when they were getting relocation and expansion fees.

I also do like the criteria too to prevent teams going through the motions and collecting $$$

polaris_x

MayDay10 wrote:

This is not true.

2/3 of the league lost money. Only 6 teams made anything you could consider a "killing"... and 4 of those are Canadian cities helped by their surging dollar since 2004.

Places that lost money in 'ill-conceived' markets include:
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Winnipeg, St Louis, Minnesota, LA, Washington, and San Jose.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/

Its bad for business when they have trouble getting owners to invest in the league.

i would be suspect of these figures ... a lot of owners use sport franchises to bury losses from other ventures ...

i mean - how is buffalo losing money? ... they've got a waiting list for season tickets and they are like top 10 in attendance ...

MayDay10

Corporate involvement. Suites and advertising. There just isnt enough of that in Buffalo.

If you watch the games, you see the same low-budget 3-6 commercials repeated that include personal injury attorneys, vericose vein treatments, excessive sweating treatments, Labatts, a local healthcare provider, and an upcoming event at MSG.

Then say Boston, you would likely have Coke, Doritos, Budweiser, Verizon, etc...

Same goes for ads in and around the rink.

Ticket prices arent quite as much either, but still pricey. Im in the cheapies and mine are about $34 each per game (STH pricing). Regular price would be like $40 vs Florida on a weeknight vs about $78 vs Toronto/Montreal on a Saturday. They are tiered/variable

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

Corporate involvement. Suites and advertising. There just isnt enough of that in Buffalo.

If you watch the games, you see the same low-budget 3-6 commercials repeated that include personal injury attorneys, vericose vein treatments, excessive sweating treatments, Labatts, a local healthcare provider, and an upcoming event at MSG.

Then say Boston, you would likely have Coke, Doritos, Budweiser, Verizon, etc...

Same goes for ads in and around the rink.

Ticket prices arent quite as much either, but still pricey. Im in the cheapies and mine are about $34 each per game (STH pricing).

Does Buffalo receive revenue sharing?

MayDay10

yes, they do.

In order to do so, they need to raise ticket prices each year a certain % (and maintain attendance levels).


I remember a few years ago Nashville was going to fall short of their attendance requirement and there was a big contraversy because ownership was going to buy up enough remaining seats for the year to push them above the required average to receive R.S.

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

yes, they do.

In order to do so, they need to raise ticket prices each year a certain % (and maintain attendance levels).


I remember a few years ago Nashville was going to fall short of their attendance requirement and there was a big contraversy because ownership was going to buy up enough remaining seats for the year to push them above the required average to receive R.S.

That brings me to my other point...why should a fan in Montreal pay 120 a ticket when in Buffalo that same ticket might sell for 50?...see its not the owners paying revenue sharing, it the fan.

MayDay10

I guess you could look at it as a supply/demand issue in each individual city.

It is a tough question. A very socialized model has worked very well for the NFL and has been big in vaulting the league to the top of the food chain. I believe the home team gets 60% of ticket sales and visitor gets 40%, and the home team keeps 100% of suite revenue.

The league as a whole hurts if/when teams relocate, fold, go bankrupt, cant find owners, etc. That hurts everyone's revenues, NHL television contracts, etc. So it is in best interests to support the 'struggling' franchises which are most of them. Everyone's franchise value increases.

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

I guess you could look at it as a supply/demand issue in each individual city.

It is a tough question. A very socialized model has worked very well for the NFL and has been big in vaulting the league to the top of the food chain. I believe the home team gets 60% of ticket sales and visitor gets 40%, and the home team keeps 100% of suite revenue.

The league as a whole hurts if/when teams relocate, fold, go bankrupt, cant find owners, etc. That hurts everyone's revenues, NHL television contracts, etc. So it is in best interests to support the 'struggling' franchises which are most of them. Everyone's franchise value increases.

is that how the revenue is split in the NHL?

lukin2006

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/11/ ... cancelled/

Fans should make NHL pay if Winter Classic is cancelled

Not to be a contrarian here, but all the gnashing of teeth over the National Hockey League’s reported intention to cancel the Bridgestone Winter Classic later this week is completely misplaced.

If the league does it, it won’t be despite the fact that it was Toronto versus Detroit, two storied franchises, a first inclusion of a Canadian team, in all ways a potential bonanza.

It will be precisely because Gary Bettman and his soulless owners — and their crisis management team and the lockout specialists at the law firm of Proskauer Rose and whoever else is advising the NHL on acceptable risks — have concluded that in those two hockey markets, the game is bulletproof, backlash-proof.

Torontonians return to the ticket windows like trained pigs every year, no matter how terrible the Maple Leafs are, how much they charge for a seat and a beer and a hot dog, how many generations go by without any real sense of something good in the offing.

Detroit is Hockeytown, USA. The Red Wings, at the opposite end of the performance scale from the sorry Leafs, consistently reward their intensely loyal fan base with excellent ownership, management, players, and prospects.

Whenever hockey comes back, no matter how shabbily the two sides in this labour war treat them, whatever the fallout might be in lesser markets, Bettman and his henchmen know that Detroit and Toronto will never punish them for their sins. And the casual fan will forget it was supposed to be on, anyway.

Sure, the league will lose the record ticket and merchandise revenue the game at massive Michigan Stadium would have generated, but compared to the cost of wiping out the entire pre-New Year’s schedule, it’s a drop in the bucket.

Indeed, if the Winter Classic is cancelled — and whatever might be announced this week doesn’t make it so, because there is a certain air of scripted-ness to this whole dog-and-pony show that defies accepting at face value anything either side may say — you can be sure the NHL will simply re-schedule it for a year hence. Big House, here we come again. No hard feelings, eh? No harm done.


Only I’m not sure the league has done its calculations correctly on that last bit.

Because if cancelling the Winter Classic — one of the brilliant strokes to emerge from the last lockout, when the league knew it had to come back better and with more fresh new ideas — doesn’t cause harm, and plenty of it, then shame on all of us.

Shame on the media for chasing the non-negotiating committees around the continent, or lining up like groupies at the players’ shinny games to beg for a quote, reinforcing the notion that we are hopelessly lost without them. Shame on the fans for railing at the players and owners, swearing they will never, ever, ever come back this time — and then coming back, anyway. You know you will.

But mostly, shame on the league’s corporate partners, for getting back into bed with an outfit that exhibits an unfathomable arrogance towards its customers and, by extension, takes for granted the customers of those TV networks and car makers and tire manufacturers, those breweries and fast food outlets, those banks and video games.

It’s the “Bridgestone” Winter Classic. Huge investment. It’s on NBC, the network that — after years of watching hockey wander aimlessly in the U.S. television wasteland — paid the NHL US$2-billion over 10 years for rights to air its product, kicking off each season’s slate of network games with the breathlessly-hyped extravaganza on New Year’s Day.

If HBO, whose 24/7: Road to the Winter Classic documentaries have been an enormous boon to the profile of hockey and its players the last couple of seasons, doesn’t tell the NHL to take a hike after this, it will be a miracle.

How happy can NBC — which will pay the league its US$200-million this year, lockout or not — be if it has no sports property on a holiday when hockey is supposed to fill three or four hours of programming time? Thanks for nothing, NHL. How happy can the companies be that were to have advertised on the telecast as part of their overall commitment to hockey, when their best audience of the season is lost?

ESPN.com writer Scott Burnside raised this salient point Wednesday: If you’re a sponsor, why would you touch the NHL with a 10-foot pole late in any CBA?

“And if you’re a sponsor looking for a place to park your advertising or sponsorship monies,” he wrote, “why you would turn to a sport whose signature move every time it’s presented with a labour negotiation is nuclear winter?”

Make no mistake: if the NHL cancels the Winter Classic, it will be for the sole purpose of sending the message that there is nothing it will not sacrifice to break down the players’ resolve. Because the New Year’s Day gigglefest is the NHL’s best property between September and April. Better, and more important, than any all-star weekend.

It will be a demonstration of the owners’ willingness to risk destroying a good deal of what the league has built in the darkest corners of Hockeydom south of the border to prove a point: that it’s their game, not ours, and certainly not the players’.

They know Canadians will never turn on them, and they can probably count on the U.S. Northeast to hang in there and shrug off another body blow. The Bruins, Rangers, Flyers, Penguins … they’re solid.

So here’s to you, our American cousins in those markets where hockey is only followed by the few, the brave, the diehards, or in years when the locals are doing well.

Grow a pair, people.

Make these idiots pay. Turn away. Watch something else, and don’t go back when they kiss your butt and promise you an autographed jockstrap and a buy-one, get-one-free hot dog deal. When they say the game’s going to be better and the ticket prices are going to be lower, call their bluff. Because this time, they have no grand plan to make it better, and the ticket prices are never coming down.

Except in Phoenix, of course, where the NHL beat the Christmas rush Wednesday by laying off the Coyotes’ very able manager of media relations. Best of the season to you, Tim Bulmer, from Gary and the gang.

That ought to balance the budget.

The fan won't though!!!

drivingrl

Last night I was so desperate for a sport to watch that I watched women's college volleyball. :shock:

polaris_x

that's a great article ...