A lockout is good for the league

[Quebecois]

Seems weird to say it, and its going to be tough with no hockey season for all of next year, but a lockout is what this league needs. The NHL is losing more and more money, and it paid 73% of the revenue back that it had made to players salaries and benefits. The league cant survive like this. The players will gradually lose jobs, teams will gradually go bankrupt and then who knows what will become of the NHL.

We can only hope that Bettman can get a long term solution for these problems, not a quick fix that will only last a few years. Players salaries are just far too high for more than half of the teams to compete. I hate how the NHL only has a select few teams that compete for the cup year in, year out. Sure you get a few suprise cup finalists, Carolina and Anaheim to name a couple, but in the end it is always Colorado, Detroit, New Jersey or Dallas that stand on top. Its been like that since 1995, its getting ridiculous.

Sure there were dynasties in the old days, but they were almost entirely homegrown (draft picks) I know some of you are going to argue that a lot of these teams have draftees that played big parts on their team, however these teams are the only teams where players actually want to play and they have free shots to sign any free agent they want. These teams have won cups with their teams, yet they still spend the big bucks. Colorado has won 9 division titles in a row (i believe its 9) and yet they still upgrade with 2 more superstars this off-season. Detroit had to let go of Fedorov, but they signed Hatcher and Whitney. Maybe NJ isnt the best example because they havent made as many huge free agency signings as the other 3 teams mentioned.

The Bottom line in all of this is: does anyone here really see the Wings, Stars, Avs or Devils being a bottom feeder of the NHL anytime soon? I have no doubt in my mind that the Wings will be ok despite their old age, because they will be able to purchase any player they want on the free agent market. (ill admit they have done a great job drafting too, but even without that young talent it wouldnt matter because they have $$$)

I love the NHL and hockey, but the way things are going, finances are just too huge a part of the game for my liking. Parity is non-existent as the same teams seem to find themselves on top come June, and that makes the league less-enjoyable. For lots of reasons such as this, i find that, although i still follow the NHL like crazy, the NFL is on top right now in my own preference, despite the fact that i would say both sports are pretty close as far as my favourites. God i hope the new CBA helps this league, because it is heading into oblivion right now...

Here is a link about the NHL's record losses.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=54418

[Habs77]

A lockout is good only if it leads to a CBA that truly allows the league to be healthy and strong in the long-term.

Alas the NHLPA is so strong, I doubt that will ever happen. Some kind of compromise will eventually be agreed upon, so we might get something that kinda helps... but in the end the same problems will remain.

That's what MLB did in 94', and again when they averted a strike last year.... nothing has changed. The Yankees will still spend more than the others combined, and they'll be so proud they make the playoffs again.

At least in the NHL more teams make the playoffs, and upsets are more prevalent... so that helps.

I think the big markets will always spend more, and hence will always have better clubs (mostly)... unless there's a hard cap like the NFL that's never going to change.

I don't see us EVER having a hard cap in the NHL.

A soft cap, some type of revenue sharing will be put in place... but just enough for the weaker clubs to survive, not be competitive.

The biggest problem with the game isn't even the dollars & cents... it's the game itself. All these defensive systems have rendered hockey boring as hell on most nights, and so the sport is failing to attract fans aside from the hardcore hockey fans.

And so attendance in many US cities is pathetic, and a much needed big US TV deal is just about impossible since nobody is watching.

The NBA made zone defenses illegal a year or two ago... to improve the pace of the game, because the new defensive schemes were ruining the flow of the game.

The NHL should take some notes, figure out a way to somehow make the trap illegal. Not easy I know, but it might be critical to the game's survival... so it's worth looking into.

And the ticket prices are way too high, the only games I'm willing to pay for are playoff games at this point. Too many regular season games are duds, and I don't want to spend 80-100$ on a dud of a game.

[Edited on 19-9-03 by Habs77]

[Quebecois]

And the ticket prices are way too high, the only games I'm willing to pay for are playoff games at this point. Too many regular season games are duds, and I don't want to spend 80-100$ on a dud of a game.  

Prices are ridiculous, but i dont know if the owners have any other choice, because they are losing a ton of money as it is, it's not feasable to lower ticket prices at this point.

[Habs77]

Originally posted by Quebecois

Prices are ridiculous, but i dont know if the owners have any other choice, because they are losing a ton of money as it is, it's not feasable to lower ticket prices at this point.

Owners aren't losing that much money, creative accounting has a lot to do with it.

A lot of team owners own the buildings, in which they hold plenty of events while their teams are on the road... this money is not taken into account.

So don't feel too sorry for the billionaires & millionaires that own the hockey teams, they're not losing as much as they claim.

Owners say those are two seperate things, that the hockey side of the business needs to be financially feasible on it's own. Which makes sense, especially for the teams who don't own their arena and can't count on that extra revenue.

When players' salaries are reduced, part of the savings need to be passed on to the fans in the form of lowered ticket prices... because the current prices are ridiculous.

The other part would go towards leveling off the owners' bottom line.

Then if they fix the game itself, the show given on the ice, they'll attract more fans, get the big TV contract they need, and league can be strong again.

WIll that ever happen?.. I'm not holding my breath.

[CerebusClones]

THe lockout will be great for the league only if owners don't cave in just to avoid a strike like in the MLB. The new CBA in baseball has done almost nothing IMO to improve the financial status of teams, or to ensure that "normal" markets can campete.

Hockey has to achieve that because the sport isn't anywhere has strong has baseball.

As for ticket prices, they are driven by market and demand, and since the demand is stong enough for the Habs to easily have one of the best attendance of the league even with a losing team... so prices will not go down. Are tickets expensive, yes. Are they ridiculous, not according to the market. Only when attendance goes down will the pricesgo down, and I doubt that will happen before a long time.

[huzer]

A lockout will kill a league that is already struggling to find fans. The completely ideal (and completely unlikely) scenario would have the owners and union getting things settled before next season. Otherwise, the NHL is hosed for quite a while...The WHA starting up next year looks like it could be a brilliant move.

[CerebusClones]

Not having a lockout will be even worse for the league. If things don't change, small market teams will soon begin folding, team parity will disappear so new hockey markets will never grow, and thus the fan base will shrink.

The NHL needs to offer a better product on the ice, and this will partly be accomplished thru the next CBA. Above economics, they need to find solutions (like new and modifired) to actual problems (like how boring the game as become).

All this will require both parties to make concessions, and since both seem to only be interested in their own well-being, this will take a lot of time.

And yes, Bobby Hull thought about the lock-out when he decided the WHA would begin next year. He's hoping to steal players, and also a part of the market. For us, this could end up neing a really good thing. The NHL will now get some competition, and most of the time, this means a better product at a lower price for the customers.

[Habs77]

The WHA is no threat whatsoever to the NHL... the best players will always go where the money is and the is no money in the WHA.

At best it'll become another secondary league, filled with NHL castoffs and a few AHL vets... who cares.

If the new CBA in the NHL includes non-guaranteed contracts, then I could see a steady a flow of aging veterans being release from there expensive contracts and jumping to the WHA because that league will want as many recognizable names as possible... no matter how much their skills have deteriorated.

As for whether a strike would kill the NHL?... No way.

At this point the NHL has nothing to lose, might as well strike and fix the problem once & for all.

At worst the league would risk losing a few franshises in some of the weaker hockey markets... and that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[CerebusClones]

There is money to be made in the WHA fro one player per team.

However, for a player to go to WHA will not be good for sponsors and commercial deals. Jason Ward didn't get a big Nike deal after leading the AHL last season.

But yes, for now, players will still prefer playing in the NHL, but that doens't mean the NHL can forget about the WHA.

There are some great marketing opportunities out there for the WHA, and the NHL better be aware of it. Otherwise, the WHA could slowy streal away players, fans, and market share.

As I mentionned before, this competition could be good for us. It will force the NHL to fix it's financial mess, and also to find some new ways to improve the game.

[huzer]

Sigh, I guess I can't really figure out a way to properly express my opinion, but I think this is the only place where I've heard of people hoping for a lockout. I understand everyone's reasoning, so it doesn't need to be reiterated to me, but I would still prefer something to get done before next season. And while I'm at it, I'd like to win the lottery as well.

[Habs77]

Originally posted by huzer

Sigh, I guess I can't really figure out a way to properly express my opinion, but I think this is the only place where I've heard of people hoping for a lockout. I understand everyone's reasoning, so it doesn't need to be reiterated to me, but I would still prefer something to get done before next season. And while I'm at it, I'd like to win the lottery as well.

Personally I'm not rooting for a strike, what I'm saying is I rather have a strike that leads to a CBA that solves the NHL's problems than avoiding a strike at all costs and compromising on a BS CBA that solves nothing.

What I fear most is a strike, and that in the end we get the BS CBA that will solve nothing... and sadly I believe this is the most likely scenario.

That said, as you pointed the NHL being on such thin ice already they might want to avoid a strike if they have any good sense left.

The NHLPA is the one that has to get it's head on straight IMO, they're refusing to talk right now.

P.S. By the way, just something that really bugs me and really shows how stupid Bettman and the NHL execs are.

They signed a TV deal that ended in the same year as the CBA. How stupid can you get?

You know that when a CBA expires you have a potential strike on your hands and you'll be in a weak position negotiating for the next TV contract because of it.

On the other side since you're desperate to settle the CBA negotiations so you can start shopping for a TV contract, you're in a position of weakness when negotiating with the NHLPA as well.

Stupid management, for a sick sport... it's just so damn pathetic.

[habitual_hab]

Owners aren't losing that much money, creative accounting has a lot to do with it.  

A lot of team owners own the buildings, in which they hold plenty of events while their teams are on the road... this money is not taken into account.  

So don't feel too sorry for the billionaires & millionaires that own the hockey teams, they're not losing as much as they claim.  

Owners say those are two seperate things, that the hockey side of the business needs to be financially feasible on it's own. Which makes sense, especially for the teams who don't own their arena and can't count on that extra revenue.  

When players' salaries are reduced, part of the savings need to be passed on to the fans in the form of lowered ticket prices... because the current prices are ridiculous.  

The other part would go towards leveling off the owners' bottom line.  

Then if they fix the game itself, the show given on the ice, they'll attract more fans, get the big TV contract they need, and league can be strong again.  

WIll that ever happen?.. I'm not holding my breath.  

Couple of things.

Bettman says the owners lost $300-million.

Bettman recently received a new contract (I think?) from the NHL BofG.

Since Bettman is doing such a piss-poor job to make the owners lose such a substantial amount of money why would they keep him on? Sounds like BS to me.

Bettman says the owners lost $300-million.

The owners supposedly have a $300-million war chest saved up to get through a strike.

Comment necessary?

Player salaries have escalated beyond the NHL's ability to compensate.

Who negotiates, signs and pays out the contracts? The players (and their partners in crime - their agents) hold a gun to owners' collective heads and force them to sign ludicrous contracts? What a joke. The BofGs are responsible for the state of affairs in the NHL today.

For a good read I recommend Net Worth: Exploding the Myths of Pro Hockey

http://www.timfalconer.com/content/bookreviews.html

In its first 75 years the National Hockey League has resembled nothing so much as a feudal system that has employed the techniques of totalitarianism -- misinformation, banishment and doublespeak -- to maintain the bonds of servitude. It is a business dominated by greed, ego and exploitation, according to David Cruise and Alison Griffiths, authors of Net Worth: Exploding the Myths of Pro Hockey.

The book is a history of hockey told largely through the colorful characters who have driven the business side of the game. The villains include Conn Smythe, original owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Jack Adams, the long-time general manager of the Detroit Red Wings and James Norris, who owned the Red Wings, the New York Rangers and the Chicago Blackhawks and had the owner of the Bruins in his pocket because of loans he made to keep that team afloat during the depression. The victims are the players especially former Red Wing great, Ted Lindsay, who tried to start a players' association in 1957, and Bobby Orr, who was in debt when he retired while his agent, Alan Eagleson, was a multi-millionaire.

The authors portray Eagleson as the villain's villain. Indeed many of the myths exploded in the book surround the founder and executive director of the NHL Players Association. The owners did not crush his 1967 attempt to start a union because they wanted to demonstrate the docility of the players to ensure their lucrative expansion deal. And instead of a radical, the NHL owners were getting a union leader who had no labour experience and was a former Conservative member of the Ontario legislature. With that kind of stooge as head of the players' union, free agency has remained highly punitive and the so-called improvements to the pension plan have virtually all been funded by the players themselves.

Fascinating and provocative, Net Worth is a must read for any hockey fan. It is not, however, the kind of thing you want to leave under the Christmas tree for your 12-year-old. Let his illusions flicker a little longer.

[sakiqc]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...1829784,00.html

Interesting read on the Denver Post . Some quotes here:

According to the NHL Players Association, the contracts of almost 80 percent of the NHL players will expire after the season,

"Guys are going to want to play somewhere if there's no NHL," Avalanche left wing Alex Tanguay said. "I'm sure a bunch of guys would play (in the WHA) if they get a league up and going."

"Nobody wants a lockout," Hinote said. "But, hey, if there is, guys are going to want to play hockey somewhere."

[ch_nl]

I can look at the NHL from distance and I think that I may have a different viewing agle. (Can one say so?)

First of all, NHL-hockey has to compete with NBA, NFL and MLB.

Since I'm from Europe I can't understand either MLB or NFL. But I can say something about NBA and NHL.

Both leauges have stars. Wich is the main thing.

But in my opinion NHL needs to get rid of the red-line offside.

It has worked verry well in Europe and hockey has never been more fun to watch since the took it away. It opens up the play and the trap becomes impossible. Stars get the oppertunity to shine even more.

There's no reason it shouldn't work in the NHL. It gives the game a whole new dimension. More scoring chanses and more ice.

The second thing that NHL needs to do is to find a way to reduce injuries on star-players.

Let the game be pysical but not brutal. Remember what Joe Thornton said the other week...