A Lock-Out Seems Likely

[behnam]

@jammer2. I guess my hate for this obnoxious guy has blinded me to some of the good he has done. I still don't believe his heavy hand ( Take it or leave it) approch is a successful way of negotiating.

Edited September 3, 2012 by behnam

[mojo1917]

For anyone to say Bettman has been bad for the league shows an amazing lack of awareness. They brought him in after his success with the MBA and the NHL has done nothing but improve since. They've made more money and experienced more success than ever before. The last lockout was by his design and it's what brought the salary cap. That salary cap is a large part of what's made the league stronger. Now it needs tweaked so the war drums are out. Yeah sure he said fans will return and threatens a lockout. Have you ever seen a negotiation where a leader says they won't go to extremes? That negotiator would be a failure.

Hate Bettman all you want. The league has grown leaps and bounds under him. Anyone who chooses to be blind to that is a fool. Buy jersies all you want, that doesn't make people watch the games.

you're right about the league revenues increasing and there is now a decent tv contract in place so Mr Bettman does have some successes,

I guess i disagree with some of the non-tradtional markets he's insisted on maintaining and expanding into, Atlanta was a college football town they didn't even support the excellent braves teams of the 90's it is just not a good pro sports town and i'm including the falcons in that assessment . Hockey in Phoenix is proving to be a tough sell and i resent the resources that are going into making that franchise viable. A 3rd team in the NY Metro area is proving to be difficult to maintain, when does the league take over NJ devils... ?

i'm not a fan of his marketing strategies nor his handling of this current labor negotiation. i really think a lockout this year hurts the sport tremendously, they lose all of the momentum gained from the last 2 or 3 years where the playoffs were must see TV and there were great team stories to fuel the marketing.

i like that GB is a shrewd business man but would prefer he loved hockey too, i don't get the sense that he is a fan of the game the way we are.

[jammer2]

@mojo1917 Totally agree Mojo, smart business guy, but 100% fake fan. This little pukey Napolionic troll would not know a good game if it hit him in the face. I LOVE the tradition of booing him loudly when the Cup is presented! Imagine, winning the Cup, total elation for any fan, probably waited their whole life for that moment, but can still find time to switch gears and boo the little moron! That speaks volumes....LOL!

[Polaris922]

I agree he's clearly blind to the game, but I guess to a large degree he has to be to make the tough decisions. The lockout he brought about sucked for hockey fans, but was necessary to advance the game and the league. I'm not sure if he's serious about this one or posturing. I've done my share of contract negotiations in my job, and there's always posturing so I guess we'll watch and see.

I guess I'm in the minority in liking Bettman where he is. I like the steps the league has taken and the subsequent impact on youth hockey all across the country. I know some markets fail, and I know a lot of you are against revenue sharing... But expanding into those struggling markets HAS increased the youth interest, as per USA Hockey. Programs have sprung up all over the mid-west, west, and south. It's brought in more television markets which means more money for the franchises. And bigger television contracts. It's worth a ten million dollar league contribution to a couple smaller markets to bring in a $200 million dollar tv contract. The fewer markets you have the smaller that figure becomes.

If those markets continue to require league support, year after year (i.e. Atlanta) then fine move them somewhere better. But it's GOOD for the league to prop them up a couple years and see if the fan base grows and the team becomes self-sufficient.

[Vanflyer]

The NBA still made $3.6B last year after their lockout...

Interesting fact there.

[Dynamo 47]

I think there will be a long lockout but not an entire season lost. I think there is just WAY too many differences in the revenue split to suit the owners. The owners and Bettman will state that the league revenue split will need to be more 50-50 like other major sports. The Players will counter (correctly) that hockey is unlike other major sports as there is not a major amount of TV revenue.

I think in order for their to be an agreement the players will have to agree to a more even split of revenue; possibly as much as 53-47 in their behalf. But I firmly support the players. I pay to see the players play not Ed Snider. I pay for the jersey with a players name and not the owners. The owners got almost everything they wanted the last lockout with a salary cap and revenue sharing. They cost fans a season. Now they need to bend a little in negotiations.

Personally if I were THE Hockey God for a Day I would do the following:

1) Fire Bettman

My first task would be to fire Gary Bettman. Yes he brought the winter classic and grown some revenue but losing ESPN, some questionable expansion choices (granted owner assisted), three work stoppages, and rule changes far outweigh any good he has done.

I would appoint a Commissioner who has a hockey background and someone both the players and owners would respect. Having a hockey guy as commissioner would hopefully help to expedite some of these labor issues.

My choice would be someone like Wayne Gretzky who not only would have both the players and owners respect but the sports world. Gretzky is recognized world wide and would add some instant credibility to the league and increase it's exposure.

My second choice would be Ken Dryden who not only is a legendary ex-player but someone with a law degree and has a sharp business acumen.

2) Contraction - there are some teams that will never be hockey markets and to continue to throw league money at these teams is wasting revenue. Phoenix is a prime example of the league throwing millions of dollars to keep the team afloat. The Players Union would likely fight this as there would be less jobs. Teams that I would consider would be Phoenix, One of the Florida Teams, possibly Nashville or Columbus.

3) Salary Cap - I would implement a revised salary cap that would allow the teams that generate more revenue to have more cap space. For example, I hate the revenue sharing and think it not fair to big market teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs, Wings to have to support teams like Phoenix, Tampa, etc. To give those teams a slight advantage I would allow those teams to exceed the salary cap by the weighted revenue they generate.

4) Rule Changes

There are two major areas that I would address with rule changes and they are as follows:

a. Goalie Equipment - I would immediately reduce the size of goalie equipment so that the goalies are not looking like the Michelin Man. Look at photos or video of Dryden, Bernie, even Marty when he started his career and the difference is highly evident. Yes players are bigger nowadays but Boom Boom Geffrion and Al Iafrate still shot pucks the same 100 mph that Chara does,

b. NO Instigator - The league has become less physical to me and players are taking more liberties then ever. I think that is due in large part to a commissioner like Bettman who never played the game and never understood the importance and role of fighting in the game. I am not expecting a return to the 70's or even the 80's but a return of players being able to police themselves and to hold others accountable.

I know I am dreaming and some if not all of my suggestions are probably going to be a point of disagreement with other posters. Just the thought of having another hockey stoppage gets me disgusted and fed up.

[radoran]

Interesting fact there.

It is a more popular league and that was likely a lower number than they had previously.

I got the numbers while seeking NHL revenue figures from the past. I believe that was on teh wikipedia with a reference footnote.

I don't see the NHL sniffing anywhere near $3B next season if there is a lockout of any length or impact.

[radoran]

3) Salary Cap - I would implement a revised salary cap that would allow the teams that generate more revenue to have more cap space. For example, I hate the revenue sharing and think it not fair to big market teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs, Wings to have to support teams like Phoenix, Tampa, etc. To give those teams a slight advantage I would allow those teams to exceed the salary cap by the weighted revenue they generate.

I like most of your ideas, but I reject outright the idea that in a competitive sports league teams in larger markets or more lucrative local sponsorship deals "should" have more of a competitive advantage than they already enjoy - the ability to spend more on a regular basis and cover over their obvious mistakes with big heaps of money.

There has to be a level playing field that is based on actual level, competitive rules for all.

This goes hand in hand with your contraction ideas - which I do agree with.

Primarily, "revenue sharing" (as was explained on another thread) is a maximum - MAXIMUM - $10M payment to a franchise. It requires a number of factors to even reach that point. Considering a $70M cap, it's a drop in the bucket.

For all the bluster about "put teams where the people who want to see them," Winnipeg wouldn't have gotten the Jets back if their ownership didn't have the prospect of revenue sharing. Quebec has already failed once. I do think there are too many teams but, as you note, the NHLPA will resist contraction.

Now, Phoenix has obviously been in NHL receivership and that's a horse of a completely different color than "revenue sharing." The league's owners obviously have decided it is important for them to have a position in the sixth largest city and #14 metro area in the United States. That was the point of expansion as sold by Bettman and bought by the owners (who pocketed the expansion fees quick enough).

I'll wager that the Flyers' owner - Comcast - believes so, too, given their investment in creating a national sports network and the NBC TV contract. If the NHL wants to grow the game into new markets - which it claims to - then investing in those new markets by the divisions of the league that are profitable will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future.

[Polaris922]

I think there will be a long lockout but not an entire season lost. I think there is just WAY too many differences in the revenue split to suit the owners. The owners and Bettman will state that the league revenue split will need to be more 50-50 like other major sports. The Players will counter (correctly) that hockey is unlike other major sports as there is not a major amount of TV revenue.

I think in order for their to be an agreement the players will have to agree to a more even split of revenue; possibly as much as 53-47 in their behalf. But I firmly support the players. I pay to see the players play not Ed Snider. I pay for the jersey with a players name and not the owners. The owners got almost everything they wanted the last lockout with a salary cap and revenue sharing. They cost fans a season. Now they need to bend a little in negotiations.

Personally if I were THE Hockey God for a Day I would do the following:

1) Fire Bettman

My first task would be to fire Gary Bettman. Yes he brought the winter classic and grown some revenue but losing ESPN, some questionable expansion choices (granted owner assisted), three work stoppages, and rule changes far outweigh any good he has done.

I would appoint a Commissioner who has a hockey background and someone both the players and owners would respect. Having a hockey guy as commissioner would hopefully help to expedite some of these labor issues.

My choice would be someone like Wayne Gretzky who not only would have both the players and owners respect but the sports world. Gretzky is recognized world wide and would add some instant credibility to the league and increase it's exposure.

My second choice would be Ken Dryden who not only is a legendary ex-player but someone with a law degree and has a sharp business acumen.

2) Contraction - there are some teams that will never be hockey markets and to continue to throw league money at these teams is wasting revenue. Phoenix is a prime example of the league throwing millions of dollars to keep the team afloat. The Players Union would likely fight this as there would be less jobs. Teams that I would consider would be Phoenix, One of the Florida Teams, possibly Nashville or Columbus.

3) Salary Cap - I would implement a revised salary cap that would allow the teams that generate more revenue to have more cap space. For example, I hate the revenue sharing and think it not fair to big market teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs, Wings to have to support teams like Phoenix, Tampa, etc. To give those teams a slight advantage I would allow those teams to exceed the salary cap by the weighted revenue they generate.

4) Rule Changes

There are two major areas that I would address with rule changes and they are as follows:

a. Goalie Equipment - I would immediately reduce the size of goalie equipment so that the goalies are not looking like the Michelin Man. Look at photos or video of Dryden, Bernie, even Marty when he started his career and the difference is highly evident. Yes players are bigger nowadays but Boom Boom Geffrion and Al Iafrate still shot pucks the same 100 mph that Chara does,

b. NO Instigator - The league has become less physical to me and players are taking more liberties then ever. I think that is due in large part to a commissioner like Bettman who never played the game and never understood the importance and role of fighting in the game. I am not expecting a return to the 70's or even the 80's but a return of players being able to police themselves and to hold others accountable.

I know I am dreaming and some if not all of my suggestions are probably going to be a point of disagreement with other posters. Just the thought of having another hockey stoppage gets me disgusted and fed up.

Well some I agree with some I don't...

1). Firing Bettman is a mistake. Losing ESPN was a blessing! TV revenues multiplied repeatedly after dumping them and their ******** hockey gets 5 minutes policies. Bettman brought parity to the league, a hard salary cap which is the only kind that works, and got owners operating on one page to the benefit of the league. Yes work stoppages suck. But without at least the last one the NHL is five or six teams with nothing but scraps around them. And we have to see if there is another one.

2). Contraction hurts the league. See multiple posts about expansion's impact on overall revenue and youth hockey. Again when teams show long term failure they will move. That's what has happened repeatedly.

3). Removing the hard salary cap is pure Flyers homerism. It would destroy the fair competition ideal of the NHL. So your team plays in a huge market area and is a subsidiary of cable pirates... Does that mean every other team should be the same to be able to compete? Destroy the hard cap and watch the league revenues fall again. Tv contracts drop. That hurts your parent pirates. Maybe then they'd sell off the Spectacor subsidiary, who knows?

4). Agree 100% on both counts.

[bryanc]

Greetings:

Two weeks ago I thought the collective bargaining process would work and the season would not be in jeopardy. Now I see a lost season, or at least some loss, as almost certain.

In some ways I think this is more of a pivot point than '04-'05. You could argue that in '04 the league's finances were out of kilter and the NHLPA was being led over the cliff. This time around, the finances relate to a handful of "sick" franchises, owners who want protection from their own avarice/stupidity, and players who want to preserve the "Bettman Model" of nontraditional franchises even if marginal TV revenues fail to cover "sick" franchise problems.

I also suspect that Bettmann-Fehr is a titanic personality clash of two lawyers from radically different backgrounds. There are elements of "class warfare" in any collective bargaining but these personalities seem worlds apart as people.

Personally, driving across I-75 to see the Florida Everblades in Estero isn't too appealing, unless it's combined with a stay on the West Coast. But that seems like a pain in the you-know-what to get a fix of minor league hockey.

One other observation: I suspect Gary Bettmann's job is on the line. Fehr will stay on regardless of outcome. But owners may use this an opportunity to move him out, even if the outcome is "owner-friendly."

Peace,

Howie

Howie, I've already decided that the way I will get my hockey game watching fix is to hang out at the rink after my beer league games to watch the A and B level teams play.

[Vanflyer]

I don't see the NHL sniffing anywhere near $3B next season if there is a lockout of any length or impact.

The thing about that is to actually see the break down: Gate / Concession - Merchandising - TV Revenue. I am going to guess that the NBA hit some high marks because of TV revenue. The Playoffs had some good story lines and most "forgot" the lockout by that point.

[PHI Flyers10]

I think there will be a long lockout but not an entire season lost. I think there is just WAY too many differences in the revenue split to suit the owners. The owners and Bettman will state that the league revenue split will need to be more 50-50 like other major sports. The Players will counter (correctly) that hockey is unlike other major sports as there is not a major amount of TV revenue.

I think in order for their to be an agreement the players will have to agree to a more even split of revenue; possibly as much as 53-47 in their behalf. But I firmly support the players. I pay to see the players play not Ed Snider. I pay for the jersey with a players name and not the owners. The owners got almost everything they wanted the last lockout with a salary cap and revenue sharing. They cost fans a season. Now they need to bend a little in negotiations.

Personally if I were THE Hockey God for a Day I would do the following:

1) Fire Bettman

My first task would be to fire Gary Bettman. Yes he brought the winter classic and grown some revenue but losing ESPN, some questionable expansion choices (granted owner assisted), three work stoppages, and rule changes far outweigh any good he has done.

I would appoint a Commissioner who has a hockey background and someone both the players and owners would respect. Having a hockey guy as commissioner would hopefully help to expedite some of these labor issues.

My choice would be someone like Wayne Gretzky who not only would have both the players and owners respect but the sports world. Gretzky is recognized world wide and would add some instant credibility to the league and increase it's exposure.

My second choice would be Ken Dryden who not only is a legendary ex-player but someone with a law degree and has a sharp business acumen.

2) Contraction - there are some teams that will never be hockey markets and to continue to throw league money at these teams is wasting revenue. Phoenix is a prime example of the league throwing millions of dollars to keep the team afloat. The Players Union would likely fight this as there would be less jobs. Teams that I would consider would be Phoenix, One of the Florida Teams, possibly Nashville or Columbus.

3) Salary Cap - I would implement a revised salary cap that would allow the teams that generate more revenue to have more cap space. For example, I hate the revenue sharing and think it not fair to big market teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs, Wings to have to support teams like Phoenix, Tampa, etc. To give those teams a slight advantage I would allow those teams to exceed the salary cap by the weighted revenue they generate.

4) Rule Changes

There are two major areas that I would address with rule changes and they are as follows:

a. Goalie Equipment - I would immediately reduce the size of goalie equipment so that the goalies are not looking like the Michelin Man. Look at photos or video of Dryden, Bernie, even Marty when he started his career and the difference is highly evident. Yes players are bigger nowadays but Boom Boom Geffrion and Al Iafrate still shot pucks the same 100 mph that Chara does,

b. NO Instigator - The league has become less physical to me and players are taking more liberties then ever. I think that is due in large part to a commissioner like Bettman who never played the game and never understood the importance and role of fighting in the game. I am not expecting a return to the 70's or even the 80's but a return of players being able to police themselves and to hold others accountable.

I know I am dreaming and some if not all of my suggestions are probably going to be a point of disagreement with other posters. Just the thought of having another hockey stoppage gets me disgusted and fed up.

I'm going to have to stop you after your first point. The ONLY person that should replace Gary Bettman as the NHL's all-powerful commissioner is Jon Sim.

[Dynamo 47]

I'm going to have to stop you after your first point. The ONLY person that should replace Gary Bettman as the NHL's all-powerful commissioner is Jon Sim.

That would not be at all fair as than hockey would exlipse football in terms of revenue.

Most people piss in the snow and write their name. Jon Sim can piss his name onto concrete.

[Howie58]

Howie, I've already decided that the way I will get my hockey game watching fix is to hang out at the rink after my beer league games to watch the A and B level teams play.

Bryan:

Well, enjoy the Mellow Yellow...I hope it doesn't come down to that.

Peace,

Howie

[jammer2]

I just want to win the Cup, if the rules can be bent to favour the elite high spending teams....LET'S GET IT ON!!! Go back to fair AFTER we win....nothing else matters!!!!!!!!

[radoran]

I just want to win the Cup, if the rules can be bent to favour the elite high spending teams....LET'S GET IT ON!!! Go back to fair AFTER we win....nothing else matters!!!!!!!!

Root for the Globetrotters then. :-)

[idahophilly]

I like most of your ideas, but I reject outright the idea that in a competitive sports league teams in larger markets or more lucrative local sponsorship deals "should" have more of a competitive advantage than they already enjoy - the ability to spend more on a regular basis and cover over their obvious mistakes with big heaps of money.

There has to be a level playing field that is based on actual level, competitive rules for all.

This goes hand in hand with your contraction ideas - which I do agree with.

Primarily, "revenue sharing" (as was explained on another thread) is a maximum - MAXIMUM - $10M payment to a franchise. It requires a number of factors to even reach that point. Considering a $70M cap, it's a drop in the bucket.

For all the bluster about "put teams where the people who want to see them," Winnipeg wouldn't have gotten the Jets back if their ownership didn't have the prospect of revenue sharing. Quebec has already failed once. I do think there are too many teams but, as you note, the NHLPA will resist contraction.

Now, Phoenix has obviously been in NHL receivership and that's a horse of a completely different color than "revenue sharing." The league's owners obviously have decided it is important for them to have a position in the sixth largest city and #14 metro area in the United States. That was the point of expansion as sold by Bettman and bought by the owners (who pocketed the expansion fees quick enough).

I'll wager that the Flyers' owner - Comcast - believes so, too, given their investment in creating a national sports network and the NBC TV contract. If the NHL wants to grow the game into new markets - which it claims to - then investing in those new markets by the divisions of the league that are profitable will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future.

I always thought this would work: A team, such as the Flyers/Rangers/Leafs, can spend over the cap but pays a extra dollar for dollar amount to the escrow or whatever. Spend 10 million over the salary cap, then you have to pay 10 million in the "luxury" tax...

[idahophilly]

Along with that, a team can spend below the cap floor but then becomes ineligible for any escrow payments from other teams or league.

[jammer2]

@radoran "Root for the Globetrotters then. :-) "

Well, the Leafs can certainly pass as the Washington Generals!

[flyerrod]

@radoran "Root for the Globetrotters then. :-) "

Well, the Leafs can certainly pass as the Washington Generals!

BRILLIANT!!!!

[radoran]

I always thought this would work: A team, such as the Flyers/Rangers/Leafs, can spend over the cap but pays a extra dollar for dollar amount to the escrow or whatever. Spend 10 million over the salary cap, then you have to pay 10 million in the "luxury" tax...

Along with that, a team can spend below the cap floor but then becomes ineligible for any escrow payments from other teams or league.

I would like to see the faces of the owners if asked to put a portion of their money away "in escrow" each year as part of a major revenue sharing project.

"Escrow!?" "What do you mean the contract isn't worth the amount it's written for!?!? BALDERDASH!"

The main problem is the rapid escalation of the cap and the subsequent rise in the cap floor. Both sides have used every opportunity they have had to use every exemption to raise the cap that has been available.