| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2010 : 17:07:20
|
We all know the NHL is talking about pulling out of the Olympics, NHL players will not longer participate starting in 2014 if talks do not go as the NHL wants.
I have just read the biggest term that Mr. Bettman (and the NHL board) want, in order to be at the 2014 Games in Sochi, Russia.
The NHL is asking for $100 Million, (just over $3Mil per NHL team), in compensation, and in return, NHL players will be allowed to play at the games.
Do you guys think this is fair? Should the NHL be paid, in return for their players playing at the Olympics?
Irvine/prez.
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 17:36:08
|
I'm no expert in any law, or any legal matters, but the NHL might have a legitimate claim here. I don't know about $100mil, but they do lose revenue by letting players go.
I think that the IOC will probably laugh in Bettman's face if they ask for that kind of money. Although the NHL does lose revenue, the Olympics are great advertising for hockey. The NHL would get more negative publicity and anger many players (ie. Russians) than they would bargain for.
Maybe the NHL could bargain for some free advertising in one form or another? |
 |
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 17:59:56
|
Pure bargaining ploy by Mr. Bettman and co. Especially after the last olympics, I can't possibly see them actually being against olympic participation. Unless of course they want to alienate fans, and players (especially Russians). How legitmate this negative olympic view is by the owners has been questioned by many.
I believe it was Pierre Lebrun who hypothesized that the owners didn't really have a choice, since half the russian team is going to Sochi anyways. It would be awkward beyond belief to be playing through the season if that happened. That being said, it won't stop them from trying to use it as a dangling carrot in the next CBA, since Bettman is a heartless scumbag who only loves money.
We all know how this is going to go. Players will reject whatever nonsense they recommend (the 3 mill per team or whatever), and then the owners will want something else if they are going to 'give up' this.
Polish: they don't actually 'lose' revenue by letting players participate. This is unless the player gets injured of course, but believe it or not these same players were insured to up to 75% of their salaries. So it's not an economic meltdown by any stretch should they go down. If the players want to go, a possible compromise could be contributing part of their salary towards insurance perhaps. But then players might not want to go as much, so maybe not..
If anything, revenues increase (NHL enjoyed a nice little attendance surge post-Gold medal game). All it does is cause a strange break in the middle of the season. at the cost of raising the profile of the entire league. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 19:33:06
|
I was thinking that they lose revenue in the sense that NHL players that belong to the NHLPA (which has contracts with the NHL) and NHL players have signed NHL contracts themselves.
So when their players are playing hockey in a non-NHL environment which is not for charity, and someone does make money through advertising or other means when those players are playing (as occurs through Olympic sponsorships that advertisers pay to the IOC=IOC profit) then, in fact, the NHL is losing potential revenue, are they not? |
|
|
|
redneck76ca
Rookie
186 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 20:43:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
I was thinking that they lose revenue in the sense that NHL players that belong to the NHLPA (which has contracts with the NHL) and NHL players have signed NHL contracts themselves.
So when their players are playing hockey in a non-NHL environment which is not for charity, and someone does make money through advertising or other means when those players are playing (as occurs through Olympic sponsorships that advertisers pay to the IOC=IOC profit) then, in fact, the NHL is losing potential revenue, are they not?
No, they are not losing money on their players. They still make the same amount whether the players are in the Olympics or not. |
|
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 20:53:42
|
It's only really 'potential' revenue if the NHL would put on its own version of the olympics. Which we all know wouldn't make any sense or be nearly as popular.
Yes, the IOC gets money for the tv contracts, but technically the IOC is a non-profit, only keeps about 7% of revenue for the day to day costs and distributes the rest to the participating olympic countries.
As I said, if anything the Olympics increases league revenue, such as it did this year. The overall effect is minimal, however. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 21:57:54
|
OK, firstly the NHL owners don't lose money at the Olympics, they just don't reap the gains. It's kind of like giving $10,000 to your friend to invest, that friend making $2,000 on a smart buy, then giving you your $10,000 back. No one really loses, but one would think you should get a taste of the $2,000 profit.
I think $100 million is completely absurd by the way.
However, one thing I completely disagree with is that an NHL competion(in conjunction with the IIHF) other than the Olympics would completely rock and would be uber popular. Specifically if the NHL players are not in the Olympics but are in this other tournament. How would that not make sense or be as popular??? It would absolutely sell out where ever it was played and be played in prime time on several networks both in USA and Canada as well as the other Hockey Nations.
It was the called the Canada Cup. After that it was the World Cup. Both were hugely popular. Why would that now change all of a sudden??
I also completely disagree that the NHL sees any revenue increase because of Olympic Buzz. Unless it's the host city getting a few more out of towners at the NHL home teams games in and around the Games(which doesn't make sense either as Van was on the longest road trip ever around the Games). Let's face it, few if any spectators going to the the Olympics figured they would stretch their stay out a little and go to Calgary to watch a Flames game. It's pure assumption and pretty illogical at that.
Ultimately, the Winter Olympics, specifically in North America, loses a lot of it's appeal without NHL players in the games. I think both sides will come to some kind of resolution on it. In the end, if I am an owner I know I don't lose any money, but why should I allow the player I pay for to go and play for someone else, making money for them, and me not see anything for it??? |
|
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:26:37
|
Hmm, a few things...
quote:
However, one thing I completely disagree with is that an NHL competion(in conjunction with the IIHF) other than the Olympics would completely rock and would be uber popular. Specifically if the NHL players are not in the Olympics but are in this other tournament. How would that not make sense or be as popular??? It would absolutely sell out where ever it was played and be played in prime time on several networks both in USA and Canada as well as the other Hockey Nations.
quote:
It was the called the Canada Cup. After that it was the World Cup. Both were hugely popular. Why would that now change all of a sudden??
If the last world cup was 'uber popular', why would organizers not try and do it again? Probably because it wasn't that popular. I remember watching Finland/Russia and the stadium had barely 10k people in it. Saskin came out and said basically that the player's weren't interested in doing a world cup in between Olympics anymore(before he was fired, but still). Something about 4 years being enough. There isn't a thirst for it through players or from fans, really.
Secondly, if you don't think that teams (especially US teams) didn't indirectly benefit from the gold medal game, then I'd say you are mistaken.
The market share for US tv viewership for the final was a whopping 17.6, which was higher than the final round of the Masters, any Nascar race and any individual game from last years World Series. That means a hell of a lot of people who never watch hockey, ever, watched that game. You don't think a single one of these 'non' hockey fans went out and decided 'what the hell, lets check out those Blue Jackets, tickets are only $10 anyways'. Not one? Ok... That's your opinion.
It will be difficult to tell how big the effect was. Saying that there will be no effect, however, is fairly unrealistic.
Now that all being said, how about this. If the Olympics is such a PITA for Bettman/Owners, how would people feel if there was a shift in focus to an actually well scheduled and managed World Cup every four years? That to me is the best alternative, although I'd rather them stay in the Olympics obv. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 23:12:12
|
I'm just going to throw this out there...
What if, the NHL held their own tournament that was made up like this:
The top 8 scoring leaders (points wise), Captain 8 different teams.
The player who finished last (8th) in the scoring race, picked first. 7th picks second, 6th picks third, and so on and so forth.
Each player GM's their team, selecting 4 Centers, 4 RW, 4 LW, 6 DF, & 2 Goalies. They also select 1 extra forward & 1 extra D-man, as extras.
Once the draft is done, the team who selected last (1st in Points at seasons end) select their head coach first, etc...
They then square off in an 8 team tournament, of selected players by the 8 top players in the league.
For some reason, i'd like to see a tournament like this. I'd also like to see how the draft played out, more than anything.
It's certainly not the Olympics, but the NHL would be the beneficeary of all income, as they want. And we could see some quality hockey, of top-tier teams made by Ovechkin, Crosby, Thornton, etc...
:)
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
redneck76ca
Rookie
186 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 23:26:04
|
I don't see why the IIHF and the NHL don't come together to have the World Cup two years after the Winter Olympics. I think that this would be great for hockey fans and hockey the world over.
I miss the Canada/World Cup of Hockey. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 05:41:40
|
Hey Hugh, if you take a look back, I stated very clearly
"Specifically if the NHL players are not in the Olympics but are in this other tournament."
Maybe that part was missed.
I agree that the Olympics AND another tourney would be over saturation and would negatively impact both. However, if the NHL (*and NHLPA) negotiate to NOT play in the Olympics again, it won't take long for the Canada/World Cup to be restarted.
That is another reason why the NHL players in the Olympics really doesn't matter to me. I will still get my international fix one way or another.  |
|
|
|
Iceman778
Top Prospect
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 01:41:39
|
| i think NHL players are the good player no one can compare with them |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
NHL & The Olympics 
