WHL rocks Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 If you'll notice, I quoted your whole post, but was replying specifically to the comment about the NHL and KHL not having much difference. When Phoenix has an average attendance of 12,421 and that's only 4000 lower than the KHL record attendance (which was attained only when the top players in the world came over from the NHL) then it's an indication that people are more willing to spend to go see NHL level players. Fan bases also play a part, but are Russian fans any less excited about hockey than Canadian or American fans are? Phoenix (with their rock bottom tickets prices that are second lowest in the league) is the worst attended NHL team and Montreal is second in attendance (21,273) and has the 3rd highest ticket prices. Yes, Montreal was a crappy team last year but has a good fanbase because of their history of winning and particularly memorable players. Consider the question again, and then it'll hopefully make more sense. We aren't taking about how revenues are generated and why there are increases or decreases from a literal financial point of view. We're talking about which of the players or the teams causes fans to be fans. Do the players or the teams keep the league at the level it is as the best in the world? A fan could have an equally entertaining experience (with their family, with friends, on a date, etc.) at any of the major sporting events, so why choose hockey? Baseball has cheaper ticket prices so you'd think families would go there, or they'd go to minor league versions of the majors sports to make it affordable, so NHL hockey must have something that sets them apart from the NBA/NFL/MLB/AHL/CHL/etc. and allows them to draw fans who drove the record revenues during the last CBA. Yes, the league itself does have value, but that value is built off of the players. New fans (and the significant revenues we've seen as a result) aren't generated because of a cool logo or because the NHL currently uses the Stanley Cup as it's prize. You can make a similar logo and colour scheme in another league yet not have the same fanbase, and the NHL doesn't even own the Stanley Cup. If you're a fan of hockey, geographical location and the players involved on a given team will drive more fan loyalty than anything the NHL as an entity can provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 For those that aren't baseball fans (like myself) or hadn't followed the MLB labour disputes when Fehr was in charge, here's an interesting read on how he operates: ... If hockey wants to avoid losing a second season under Commissioner Gary Bettman’s watch, it should widen its analysis from issues like “core economics” and “player contracting.” The NHL had better figure out Fehr, how he runs a union, what his strategies are and, especially, why baseball got crushed time after time. The subtext of these negotiations is the Fehr factor. Long negotiations have key junctures — like Wednesday. One Fehr method is to identify moments of discovery when his union can determine the other side’s true intentions. The union pushes an aggressive proposal, one that usually addresses the concerns of moderate members in the union. That way, it either reaches an agreement soon or the membership toughens once it “discovers” that the actual strategy of the other side is a long fight. ... After covering six work stoppages, a canceled World Series and three collusion cases during Fehr’s time in baseball, I have a clear sense of how he acts at inflection points. First, Fehr means exactly what he says; previous posturing is set aside when phrases appear like “about as good” as it’ll get. Also, his membership isn’t just backing him; it really is their deal. It took baseball owners 20 years to grasp that Fehr isn’t a puppeteer. He educates, he shapes, but he doesn’t decide. The players do. That’s what empowered the MLBPA and made it so tough. Fehr will reduce demands rather than negotiate without full support. That’s core. It’s not changing. ... The biggest mismatch I’ve ever covered was not on a field. It was organized baseball against the MLBPA. And, mostly, it was unnecessary. Baseball owners refused to see the union or Fehr for what they clearly were. MLB demonized Fehr personally. Despite seeing dozens of players constantly involved in every bargaining session, they refused to accept that mere “ballplayers” actually understood the issues — sometimes better than they did. Owners, often fighting among themselves, didn’t grasp that players formed a negotiation information tree, reporting back to all players. For decades, many owners hoped that Fehr, like Marvin Miller before him, somehow had the players mesmerized, hypnotized. If they could just snap their fingers the right way, players would awake to their benevolence. NHL owners need to understand Fehr’s first two rules. First, the players are saturated with info and totally trust its source — other players, not Fehr. Second, a Fehr union will always bring a weaker deal for stronger backing. Finally, after going 0 for 8 in work stoppages, canceling the 1994 World Series and losing three collusion cases in the 1980s at a cost of $280 million, baseball figured it out. The ’94 strike left both sides, and the game, bloody. MLB finally quit framing the union as an ideological foe and began to work with it in grudging, respectful, adversarial semi-harmony. Things got better. That labor peace has lasted 17 years with no end in sight. The idea that Fehr, 64, was a radical or didn’t want owners to get filthy rich (unless players did, too) or wouldn’t take a fair deal if one were offered — that all died in the last century. ... Financially, baseball has never been healthier. It’s gushing cash. The best thing that’s happened to baseball in modern times, aside from wangling free parks at mostly public expense, was MLB’s realization that a strong union, fair labor policy, fiercely negotiated, and booming business were compatible. The price baseball paid to learn that lesson was astronomical. Now, it’s hockey’s turn. The most troubling development to me is that hockey’s leaders now sound like MLB owners a generation ago. It’s like a time warp. Two weeks ago, stories appeared intimating that players weren’t getting a straight story from Fehr, that he had his own agenda and owners’ concepts were not getting to the membership in a pure form. That is the one tactic that always backfired when baseball owners used it. It did again. ... NHL leaders need to realize, in a fraction the time it took baseball, that if you go to the mat with a Fehr union, everybody suffers, but you might get it worse. If you work with them, then one day you wake up and Albert Pujols has a $275 million contract and the Dodgers sell for $2 billion. Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 All you need to know is the highlighted part. I understand your frustration. But the fact of the matter is there are thousands of ppl waiting to take your place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 then one day you wake up and Albert Pujols has a $275 million contract and the Dodgers sell for $2 billion. not happening with the NHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Yes of course, the reason we Canadians pay hundreds of $ to go watch a hockey game is because Canadian teams have a history of winning and we have the best players in the world playing in our cities. When was the last time the Vancouver Canucks won the Cup? Actually forget that, when was the last time a Canadian team won the Cup? What is it you say? 21 years ago? I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Another lost season has been looming since the day the NHLPA announced that they were going with Donald Fehr as their leader heading into the new CBA negotiations. The militants within the union won the day and I came to terms with the fact that there will be no season this year, hockey players being the most militant lot in professional sports.They will be in there grinding for every available nickel, just like every other CBA negotiation. As North American pro athletes go, it's hard to like hockey players. They're just so damned greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 then one day you wake up and Albert Pujols has a $275 million contract and the Dodgers sell for $2 billion. not happening with the NHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Clearly, since baseball generates much higher revenue in the US, which is a much more populous market. But why couldn't we see a relative increase for hockey similar to that, where players can continue to make money and the health of the teams can also grow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 So the millionaire players are greedy? And the billionaire owners are not? The players agreed to live under the expired agreement for this year so we could still watch hockey. The owners said......na...we are going to lock out fans and players until the players crawl back on their knees and accept whatever we throw at them. The players reluctantly gave in to Bettman last time and accepted a salary cap. Owners and players BOTH have done well since. But the owners looked over and saw that the players surprisingly did better than the owners in percentage of total league revenue under the agreement that they forced on the players. So they are holding their breath and stomping their feet and locking the doors until they get and even bigger slice. But its the players that are greedy do I have that right? The owners have other revenue sources which will only increase over time, the players have a limited window of earning that kind of money until they are forced to retire through age or injury. Why is it "greedy" to want to get paid well while they can? Why is it greedy to want to keep the advances they have negotiated previously? Why is it greedy to actually agree to give up salary that you negotiated under contract in order to make a deal? Would you do that with your job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Not saying the NHL can't succeed - no matter what kind of deal gets signed. I just think it is ludicrous to throw around MLB numbers to prove a point. The NHL will never be on par with MLB in $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Absolutely, and that is the shame of it. However, like I said, there may be (and probably are) quite a few people that will do the exact same thing. And in a small market like Winnipeg, I don't know how smart it would be to p*ss off fans a second time around. Some markets are different than others, there is not question about that. And I know that not all fans are like me who would not only not buy season tickets, but not purchase any NHL merchandise. It really depends not only on the market you are in, but also on how long this lockout lasts.The fans certainly feel a lot differently towards this lockout than they did about the previous one. What I do know is that in Winnipeg, I know 5 season ticket holders (totaling 16 seats) that feel the exact same and will also be cancelling their tickets, but only if the lockout lasts the entire season.Not sure how the owners feel towards the potential loss of fans this time around, but I'm sure they are concerned about it, they aren't stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I would sympathize with the players if they were asked to make less IF they were making $70k a year. The fact of the matter is, they are playing a sport and being compensated handsomly for it. Not only that, but being compensated playing a sport that virtually nobody in the states cares about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Not that I don't agree...however, not too long ago people would have said the same about the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Not saying the NHL can't succeed - no matter what kind of deal gets signed. I just think it is ludicrous to throw around MLB numbers to prove a point. The NHL will never be on par with MLB in $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The underlying point is that the NHL can experience increased success of it's own but it was clearly a high-impact statement to finish off the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Obviously Fehr and Betman think there is a good chance the revenue won't be as projected, hence the demand for guarantee $ by PA and refusal by NHL. If they both thought like you this would not be one of the main issues in these negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 What annoys me the most is that Bettman thinks we are stupid. He makes comments talking about how the players are responsible for the damage to the game that is happening right now. The indisputable fact (and I have plenty labour relations/arbitration experience to know this) is that locking out employees is almost never done unless the employees are engaging in some sort of partial strike/work stoppage (rotating strikes, work to rule, etc) that makes it too difficult to continue running the business effectively. When you are actually wanting a deal, you simply keep working under the same agreement that has expired as you negotiate. That is standard LR practice. I know of many cases where they continue working a couple years without a new contract. So any economic damage is being caused solely by the league. Even by talking about mounting damages to the game/league... Bettman is conceding that they would be better off financially to be playing right now. If that wasn't the case there couldn't be any damages. That is unlike the previous work stoppage when more than half the teams were better off by keeping their doors shut rather than playing games. It is becoming clear that Bettman promised certain fairly dramatic things to the owners... and he is under pressure to keep those promises. Instead of taking a smaller win, he feels that doubling down is the best strategy. It is a vicious circle I have seen behind the scenes in negotiations. The longer it goes and the more it costs, the more pressure to get an even better deal in order to make up for those increasing losses and to make it seem worthwhile to have done through the labour strife in the first place. The league clearly has a very specific number in mind for what they want their savings to be. They also still feel that they can get it. They also feel in control of the process enough that they can simply start the season when they think they have wrung out enough or that the math for losses starts outweighing what they can get at the table. If I were Fehr, I would leverage the anger from today that the players have and deliver an ultimatum to the league to start putting the pressure onto them. They simply have to say that the NHLPA will continue to negotiate until 01 December, after which time they will effectively cancel the season and be negotiating for the 2013-2014 season. This allows their membership to seek employment elsewhere without having to worry about being obligated under IIHF rules to return to the NHL if a deal gets done this season. It also allows them to make plans for things like NHLPA mini-tours of the big hockey markets where they put on games/tournament similar to the Bieksa's buddies games on a regular basis (say weekly in each major market).... maybe giving half the proceeds to charity and half to the players. Nothing would freak out owners with big continuing overhead costs more than seeing other arenas filled with happy fans enjoying themselves. In this scenario you can also guarantee that broadcasters would jump on board to broadcast many of those games. Players are playing and getting paid some, fans are seeing hockey, broadcasters are getting revenue... and the owners are left on the sidelines. All of a sudden you diverge "the game of hockey" from "the NHL". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I completely get your frustration. However if I were you I would take a deep breath and re think before cancelling. It sucks to know these guys are making millions of $ off us and still looking for more but when the game is back you will most likely have a hard time staying away from it. As far as your friends in Winnipeg I don't understand their point of view at all. Winnipeg is a small market team. They will never be able to spend $70 million. Therefore it will be difficult for them to put a winning team on the ice if player salaries continue to go the way they have been. They've gone 15 years without NHL. What's it been now 6 weeks in to the lockout? (actual hockey games). Whats the big deal missing a couple of months of hockey in order to do something that will benefit their team the most? This lockout won't affect TML, MTL, NYR, PHI. It will however benefit the small market teams like EDM, WPG, OTT etc. If I'm a fan of any small market team I'm 100% behind Bettman and the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 2006/07 Canadian Dollar season average 0.96 Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 0.91 NHL Revenue Growth %: 7.45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think you better check again. From Oct 06 - March 07 the CDN$ never got to 0.96 It's low point was less than 0.85 at the beginning of Jan and it's highest point was just under 0.90 on Oct 2. I don't see how that averages 0.96 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.