|
Post by yorkspanther on Jun 15, 2012 8:31:43 GMT
Apparently there are major rumblings across the pond that an NHL lockout is increasingly likely..... Maybe Corey was right?....
|
|
|
Post by james89 on Jun 16, 2012 5:57:12 GMT
if this is happening i hope that corey has saved a few pennies for this eventuality and can bring in 2 seriously good d men and a superstar forward.
|
|
|
Post by Datsyuk #13 on Jun 16, 2012 10:40:11 GMT
Would it help us though? In the short term probably, but if the lockout ends before the end of our season they will go straight back to the NHL and could leave us short.
|
|
|
Post by timay on Jun 16, 2012 15:59:08 GMT
Most people won't be thinking about signing NHL'ers as if this lockout goes ahead its unlikely to last a full season like last time, but to sign the players that get displaced by the NHL'ers dropping down to the minor leagues.
It will mean there will be higher quality players around and ones that are unlikely to jump ship if the NHL starts up again.
|
|
Gilly
Ashley Tait
Posts: 1,870
|
Post by Gilly on Aug 19, 2012 22:04:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Aug 20, 2012 6:11:42 GMT
Won't happen. I talk a lot with all our US NHL writers for PHN and although this looks like it is shaping up the consensus is that a deal will be done. The last lock out caused irrevocable damage to the NHL and they are still reputed to be 60% down on revenue, media and public interest from before the lock-out. They will not allow that to slip further.
|
|
|
Post by pantherdman on Aug 20, 2012 18:59:04 GMT
Thats what i heard too Nem.
Bettman needs to go though, the mans a buffoon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 19:30:10 GMT
I've just posted in Talk Hockey and interesting note as to the potential of a lock-out........
|
|
alanh
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 26
|
Post by alanh on Aug 21, 2012 12:41:17 GMT
Revenues in the NHL have risen 50% since the lockout.
The season prior to the lockout NHL revenues were at $1.6B they are now at $3.2B
Interest is up thanks in part to the winter classic 'showcase' and the NBC 24/7 series that goes along with it, every game in the playoffs was shown on national TV in the US for the first time ever.
And the fact every game of the post season was shown live shows an increase in interest.
--------------- since the lockout the NHL is growing at a faster rate than the NBA.
when Bettman took over as commisioner the NHLs revenues were at $400m
But yeah that Bettman guy has no idea what he's doing, complete buffoon
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Aug 21, 2012 15:35:56 GMT
Except that everything you have said there directly contradicts everything I was told while having a chat with other media colleagues when I was over there in July. All of whom said their particular outlets spend less money, dedicate less staff, and spend less time on the NHL since the lockout. And these where guys from the likes of USA today, CBS, Hockey news, Sports web and the like. A recent survey had hockey as number 4 in the US in relation to public engagement. It was number 3 before the lock-out. (according to the USA Today journo I was talking to at a White Sox game who used to cover hockey but was moved to Baseball) We will see, I would love to see some big names over here but I wouldn't want the best league in the world damaging further.
|
|
|
Post by james1977 on Aug 21, 2012 16:58:51 GMT
Revenues in the NHL have risen 50% since the lockout. The season prior to the lockout NHL revenues were at $1.6B they are now at $3.2B........ Whilst revenues may be up overall (as has been the case since the last lock-out) it is a very small number of the usual suspect teams (Original 6 + a few others) who are making the majority of this revenue and as a result the haves are propping up the don't haves. The push towards a lock-out is predominately coming about driven by the 'have not' teams and their natural bedfellows, the NHLPA. I say "natural bedfellows" because they both want an increase in profit sharing for the same reason, to protect their jobs. Personally I'm completely against increased profit sharing and have never particularly liked the concept. Market forces should be the decider of whether teams sink or swim, not the ability to dip into the profits of successful teams. Should a snowmobile dealership in Arizona be kept in business off the back of a snowmobile dealer in Minnesota's profits? Sad fact is that under the current revenue sharing and wage cap/base arrangements it really isn't in the interests of the financially successful teams to do anymore than they do. What benefit do/would they see from their hard graft? Teams like LA (who have operated at a loss for years) win the Stanley Cup paid for, in part, by teams like Toronto who haven't been to the play-offs themselves since '03-'04. The argument that often comes out though is that without other teams who are funded through revenue sharing the 'top' teams would have no one to play. Really? Before the '67 expansion the NHL had managed to survive with a maximum of 10 teams for 50 seasons and indeed for 25 seasons they made do with only 6 teams. Whilst I don't want a return to pre-expansion numbers I'm firmly of the opinion that the league over-expanded (especially southwards) and that a little contraction would be good for the league. BTW, if anyone want to have a read of an article about the perilous state of the NHL's finances then this is fairly good. It is a year old but little has changed since then, other than bigger operating losses by those sucking most from the teat.
|
|
|
Post by Lucy on Aug 21, 2012 21:55:39 GMT
Won't happen. I talk a lot with all our US NHL writers for PHN and although this looks like it is shaping up the consensus is that a deal will be done. The last lock out caused irrevocable damage to the NHL and they are still reputed to be 60% down on revenue, media and public interest from before the lock-out. They will not allow that to slip further. Hope not (fingers crossed) have a trip planned to see some NHL before Christmas!
|
|
alanh
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 26
|
Post by alanh on Aug 21, 2012 22:09:17 GMT
Except that everything you have said there directly contradicts everything I was told while having a chat with other media colleagues when I was over there in July. All of whom said their particular outlets spend less money, dedicate less staff, and spend less time on the NHL since the lockout. And these where guys from the likes of USA today, CBS, Hockey news, Sports web and the like. A recent survey had hockey as number 4 in the US in relation to public engagement. It was number 3 before the lock-out. (according to the USA Today journo I was talking to at a White Sox game who used to cover hockey but was moved to Baseball) We will see, I would love to see some big names over here but I wouldn't want the best league in the world damaging further. Indeed it does, but what I said was solid fact. 70.2m salary cap - 8m for the midpoint x 30 for the number of teams would be around $1.8B or 57% of HRR if you prefer. Now in 2004 $44.4M was the average team salary spend, x30 for number of teams and you have $1.3B, which at the time was around 78% of HRR. This is one of the reasons a hard cap was implemented, because most teams were losing money hand over fist. there was a 22% rollback on player salaries. -------------------------- And in regard to the media spending less time and money and using less staff. Since the lockout Center Ice, and now Game Center Live have been bought in, you no longer need to send people all over the country to view games it can all be done in one place. so you don't need as many staff, it doesn't take as many man hours, and it doesn't cost as much. NBC signed a $200m deal with the NHL for national broadcast rights, the biggest in NHL history for the US, so I guess some outlets are spending more, while others ESPN for example will spend less, because they got shunned.
|
|
alanh
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 26
|
Post by alanh on Aug 21, 2012 22:36:13 GMT
Revenues in the NHL have risen 50% since the lockout. The season prior to the lockout NHL revenues were at $1.6B they are now at $3.2B........ Whilst revenues may be up overall (as has been the case since the last lock-out) it is a very small number of the usual suspect teams (Original 6 + a few others) who are making the majority of this revenue and as a result the haves are propping up the don't haves. The Canadian teams 7 + the O6 gives 12 teams in a solid financial situation, I can't argue with that. I want Phoenix a franchise who bleed money to be moved to Quebec, or Seattle which has been a smaller hockey market for a long time and is a huge sports city, Houston would also be a decent market to move into. The push towards a lock-out is predominately coming about driven by the 'have not' teams and their natural bedfellows, the NHLPA. I say "natural bedfellows" because they both want an increase in profit sharing for the same reason, to protect their jobs. Personally I'm completely against increased profit sharing and have never particularly liked the concept. Market forces should be the decider of whether teams sink or swim, not the ability to dip into the profits of successful teams. Should a snowmobile dealership in Arizona be kept in business off the back of a snowmobile dealer in Minnesota's profits? Sad fact is that under the current revenue sharing and wage cap/base arrangements it really isn't in the interests of the financially successful teams to do anymore than they do. What benefit do/would they see from their hard graft? Teams like LA (who have operated at a loss for years) win the Stanley Cup paid for, in part, by teams like Toronto who haven't been to the play-offs themselves since '03-'04. I'm going to use the Caps & Kings for an example of why the number of teams reportedly running at a loss can't be trusted. Caps income $94m, players costs $67m, P+L -$7.5m so what are they spending $34.5m on? the Kings are even better for this. Income $101m, player costs $57m, P+L -$2m So they're spending $46m on what exactly? Creative accounting is hiding money, hopefully it will be found in these CBA negotiations. The argument that often comes out though is that without other teams who are funded through revenue sharing the 'top' teams would have no one to play. Really? Before the '67 expansion the NHL had managed to survive with a maximum of 10 teams for 50 seasons and indeed for 25 seasons they made do with only 6 teams. Whilst I don't want a return to pre-expansion numbers I'm firmly of the opinion that the league over-expanded (especially southwards) and that a little contraction would be good for the league. BTW, if anyone want to have a read of an article about the perilous state of the NHL's finances then this is fairly good. It is a year old but little has changed since then, other than bigger operating losses by those sucking most from the teat. Contraction would be bad for the league. Re-location is the way they should go. Also for way more in depth information than I can provide on both sides of this debate, and all news relating to the CBA: hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124
|
|
Metal
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 75
|
Post by Metal on Aug 23, 2012 21:29:20 GMT
Won't happen. I talk a lot with all our US NHL writers for PHN and although this looks like it is shaping up the consensus is that a deal will be done. The last lock out caused irrevocable damage to the NHL and they are still reputed to be 60% down on revenue, media and public interest from before the lock-out. They will not allow that to slip further. Hope not (fingers crossed) have a trip planned to see some NHL before Christmas! We put our trip back to October 2013 - Planning some extra European trips this year
|
|