Jump to content

NHLPA dropped the ball in Atlantic City


Samifan
 Share

Recommended Posts

While I commend the players for putting on a benefit game for vicitims of Hurricane Sandy, I cannot believe they could not arrange television coverage of the game. I understand that the NHL Network is owned by the league so they were out from the get go along with NBCSports/Versus since they have the league rights.

That being said, this was a non-NHL sanctioned event for charity and the NHLPA should have been able to find a network to cover the event. It was a perfect opportunity to reach out to the fans who have been stuck in the middle of all this ******** AGAIN!

Are you telling me ESPN did not have a slot on one of their 15 channels. Hell did anyone call Oprah, I think she still owns a network.

They could have even made it a PPV event with proceeds going to the vicitim fund. I would have gladly thrown down some cash to watch it on PPV or stream it on my computer.

~Samifan~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.c...ref=hockey&_r=0

“Marty was caught in a perfect storm: Rangers fans hate him, and Flyers fans hate him,” Hartnell said. “But I told him he’s still a great guy, no matter what everyone says about him.”

Brodeur said he let in 10 goals because he was wearing Flyers colors. “I’m not used to that orange,” he said.

Edited by JackStraw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does cost A LOT of money to shoot, produce and distribute a major sporting event. The differences between a hockey game and, say, Louis CK doing standup, from a production standpoint are huge.

There's the setup costs for the arena, the setup for the cameras, the camera ops, broadcasters, the production team, intermission programming, etc.

CSN has all that in place at the WFC, which is one of the economies Comcast realizes by owning the building and having the Flyers/Sixers broadcast on a regular basis.

It's quite possible - I don't have the numbers - that the time frame for setting up the game and lack of a guaranteed fanbase conspired to make it economically unfeasible to get this game out.

There are likely other considerations as well but I'll bet that's the main one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran I agree. Logistically speaking, you would probably have to get a month notice to assemble the production crew, the sound guys, camera, and countless other talent. Getting that many people together on short notice would be like trying to schedule our fantasy draft with 24 hrs notice and hoping everyone could be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NHL ASKED NBC TO NOT BROADCAST OPERATION HAT TRICK

Written by Adam Herman on Monday, 26 November 2012 11:59.

Actions often speak louder than words. As the NHL and the players are stuck in a PR battle, it's easy for each side to spin things however they want them to appear.

Actions, though, speak for themselves.

A source directly associated with NBC Sports has informed me that the NHL specifically requested to NBC that they not broadcast Operation Hat Trick. While it's not definite that NBC would have gone through with the broadcast, the NHL's intervention seems to have been enough to end all discussions of the possibility.

Some players made the best of the situation and helped to organize a charity game in Atlantic City, a trip that was not so convenient for many of the attendees (Henrik Lundqvist came all the way from Sweden just to play). For one night, players and fans could forget and about the lockout and the economics involved. For one night, everyone in attendance and on the ice could enjoy hockey for the sake of hockey.

Gary Bettman and other NHL executives did not appear to be on the same page.

Not a bright move by the NHL, who is already losing the media tug-of-war. Bettman insists that he sympathizes with the fans and that he wants hockey back more than anyone. Then why pressure NBC, who basically changed the entire structure of their sports network to promote hockey, to not let fans all over the country watch a single hockey game. A game with absolutely no motives besides giving the fans a much needed taste of hockey and raising money for people who were devastated by a storm? Of course, the NHL would not have been dramatically hurt by the broadcasting of the game; it was purely a symbolic move and one that, in my opinion, is petty and spiteful.

Players traveled away from home, played a full 60 minutes for free to benefit charity, and interacted with and happily signed autographs until midnight. The NHL, meanwhile could not swallow their pride and compromise for just one night; a night meant to benefit charity. And while there is no denying that greed is possessing both sides to some degree, it is clear to me which side has more appreciation for hockey itself and the fans who are dedicated to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...