Didn't the owners and players learn anything from MLB? I say lock them in a room until they have an agreement. What say you? Is it the players' fault or the owners'?
Lock out...WTF?
- Thread starter Hit Man
- Start date
True enough, but the '98 MLB season brought baseball back for most folks. And as far as supporting players and owners by shelling out $$$, that's a decision we all make. I got to attend the home run derby and all star game this year and wouldn't trade the opportunity for the several thousand dollars it set me back. I'd shell out even more for Stanley Cup seats (and have tried without success). If that's all it takes, to stop spending $$$ on sports, the NFL replacements would still be on the field. Maybe it's our performance expectations that are to blame. That would be a male attribute. 
Basically they are playing "who blinks first"? There are no faults on either side as they are both entitled to get the best deal they possibly can. I just feel sorry for the people caught in the middle who will lose their livelihoods over this lock out. Besides the game has deteriorated to the point that on most nights it resembles a neutral zone traffic jam. You don't need a lot of skill to dump it in and shoot it out. If you watched the games in the 80s and early to mid-90s, you are not going to miss much.
MLB took some hits after its last labor stoppage which was caused by greed, just like the NHL. It took awhile but everyone forgave and the sport eventually bounced back strong as ever. Not so sure hockey can do that if this goes on for a longtime. Probably in Canada but not in the states. Most folks down there won't even notice that the boys aren't playing. Gary Buttman needs to recognize that.
The NHL and the NHLPA are a fucking joke!!!! Salary Cap Bottom Line, the NHL is a fringe sport in the U.S. and teams like Florida, Phoenix, Carolina and so on can't afford a huge payroll when the NHL don't even a have a big money tv deal. How the fuck does Tom Brady QB 2 time SuperBowl MVP of the New England Patriots make $2.5 million dollars a season and Martin Lapointe make $5.5 million a season, or Bobby Holik make $9.5 million a season? If that's the case Tom Brady should be making $30 million a year since he put's asses in seats and sells more jersey's then these 2 shitty players. The NHL is going nowhere in the U.S. as people would rather watch body surfing than watch hockey, I'm begining to believe that guy who called me from Tulsa Oklahoma, that the NHL is a joke as I'm thinking of NOT renewing my season tickets for the Canucks. I for one will NOT care as I'll just drive 2hrs south and cheer on the Seattlle Seahawks.
I think the players are under paid as entertainers, but overpaid as hockey players. But what are NHL teams really trying to sell? Entertainment or Hockey? You certainly wouldn't find Mick Jagger playing eighty shows for a meesely 1.2 million a year, nor should we expect hockey players too.
OK scott, I started to agree with your take about the NHL being a "fringe sport", but I gotta tell you, hockey is very popular in the US. We may not be the students of the game that our friends to the north are, but they may be missing a year wnen they could bring a lot of fans onboard, both the owners and players. I hope they don't waste it.
Scott: I wouldn't put much value on what the joker from Tulsa said. It neither reflects anything about Americans generally (despite the anti-American remarks that followed) nor reality about the NHL. Hockey is a great sport but it has not been embraced in the states. Thats just a fact as you say. With all due respect Hit Man, hockey is big in U.S. franchise cities and very popular amongst a small population of fans outside those markets. Outside of that, its overall popularity is marginal at best down there. Thats why it gets outrated by almost all other major sports on tv if you check the ratings.
If Hockey is so big in the U.S. why didn't the World Cup of Hockey generate any interest in the U.S., and why didn't the guy who called me from Tulsa, Oklahoma know what this tournament was??? Hockey is a regional sport in the U.S. @ best. The NHL is behind in ratings, attendance, mercandise sales, tv contracts in the U.S. to the NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, NCAA Baseball, WWE Wrestling, ATP Tennis, WTA Tennis, PGA Golf, LPGA Golf, Arena Football, IRL Racing, Nascar, The World Series of Poker, Boxing, and so on. Don't believe it check out the Neilson ratings in the U.S. and the NHL is way behind these sports and companies. Also Arthur Griffiths former Vancouver Canucks owner confirmed this with me on his show on 730 Mojo. It's the fucking brain dead owners fault for paying NHL players these salaries for a sport that is struggling so bad in the U.S. that NBC isn't even giving the NHL a dime on their tv deal which NBC can terminate at anytime if they (NBC) feel, and ESPN has buried their coverage on ESPN2 and reduced the amount of games they will cover. I don't have a promblem with Jerome Iginla or Mario Lemieux making the money they do BUT if Tom Brady gets $2.5 million USD and Martin Lapointe gets $5.5 million USD, there is a serious problem in the NHL.
In a way... the problem started with the aftermath of Bobby Hull, and carried over (and compounded) with the aftermath of Wayne Gretzky.scott231 said:
In 1972, when the WHA was struggling to establish itself, Bobby Hull was signed to the then-unheard of salary of $1 million.
It made sense to sign Hull to that kind of a deal, because Hull 'bought' the WHA instant credibility.
What didn't make sense was players, afterwards, arguing that 'Bobby Hull scored 60 goals last season... and I scored 30 goals last season... ergo I should be making $500,000"
Ummm... nooo... Bobby Hull brought the WHA instant credibility and sold them thousands of tickets for no-name franchises. YOU only scored 30 goals and no one really knows who you are. Your presense doesn't lead to any dramatic increase in business... ergo... you aren't worth that much money.
But some NHL owners failed to appreciate that difference... and the salary escalation took off (and it made no sense.)
This situation repeated itself with the Wayne Gretzky trade.
Bruce McNall paid the unheard of fee of $15 million dollars for Gretzky and gave Gretzky an outrageous salary of $6 million/year to play hockey.
McNall argued it was economically worth it, and that Gretzky was a bargain at that price.
And he was right.
Immediately after purchasing Gretzky, LA's season ticket sales went from 3,000 to 17,000 - a sell out (McNall re-couped all his money right there).
Then... the LA Kings signed a cable deal to televise all their home games for $10 million a season for five years (they had none previous)... that's $50 Million extra from Gretzky's presence.
Then there was the extra revenue from souveniers, jerseys, parking, concessions, etc.
Gretzky was a financial bargain at TWICE the price.
The problem is what the owners fell for afterwards.
If Gretzky got 150 points last year... and Joe Schmo got 50 points... is Joe Schmo worth one third of the $6 million per season Gretzky is making ($2 million)?
Absolutely not! Because Joe Schmo's presence on a team doesn't generate the kind of business (and revenue) that Gretzky's presence (at that time and place) did.
But the owners fell for that argument... and they are now trapped in that never ending upward spiral.
Joe Shmuck made 10 million last year, I put up similar numbers, I'm also worth 10 million.
It is a flawed, flawed argument.
But if one team doesn't pay it, another might... cause if they can win it all, it suddenly becomes worth it.
And now... to get themselves out of the mess they themselves created, they want the players to sign a contract that would keep some of their owners from stupidly falling for that argument over and over again.
And the player's will never go for it.
There is a serious problem in the NHL... and the way to solve does not lie in getting the players union to sign a contract that handcuffs rouge owners who stupidly fall for this line of logic at contract time.
It is going to be a long strike... and it may take the creation of a serious rival league to end it.
A TV Time Out....
IMHO laregely, the problem with Hockey in the US is how its packaged for television... the main TV cameras are placed WAY too high above the ice surface. Consequently the television coverage sucks and the game is almost pointless to watch on the tube. (Watch any St. Louis Blues home game for an example of this... )
If the owners placed the primary cameras at centre ice, close to the action (and forewent the revenue from the 6-10 seats that a camera station would occupy) then the coverage could potentially be stellar and people at home would see a great, fast, hard hitting game and perhaps be interested enough to come down to the rink to watch a contest and we would have many more viable franchises.
IMHO laregely, the problem with Hockey in the US is how its packaged for television... the main TV cameras are placed WAY too high above the ice surface. Consequently the television coverage sucks and the game is almost pointless to watch on the tube. (Watch any St. Louis Blues home game for an example of this... )
If the owners placed the primary cameras at centre ice, close to the action (and forewent the revenue from the 6-10 seats that a camera station would occupy) then the coverage could potentially be stellar and people at home would see a great, fast, hard hitting game and perhaps be interested enough to come down to the rink to watch a contest and we would have many more viable franchises.
If I had billions of dollars in the U.S., I would never ever buy an NHL franchise as it is a less than 50% chance you will be sucsessful. When the Vancouver Grizzlies in the 2000-2001 NBA season according to Michael Heisley were losing over $50 million USD while averaging 15,000 a game @ General Motors Place and having a very healthy tv deal in the U.S. yes they did get money from the NBA on NBC deal even though they were never televised for a game on NBC as all times split money on that deal, I shutter to think how much money the owners in Carolina, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Buffalo, Anaheim , Los Angeles, Nashville, Boston, and so on are losing as they don't have a huge money tv deal and they are playing to sometimes under 10,000 per game, and alot of those tickets are givin away for free.
If it was just of me, I would kill the whole NHL for good. Then start an international league, with nationals teams like we just saw at the World Cup. Throw in limited seasons of like 20-25 games, and voila, it would restore my passion for this sport.
I know, not feasible. Just day dreaming ...
I know, not feasible. Just day dreaming ...
The biggest difference between most of the entertainment and sports that scott231 listed and hockey is that the latter doesn't have a lot of American players -- same problem with soccer, lacrosse, curling, darts, snooker, rugby ...
and Americans, like other countries, embrace the sports that their athletes excell in ... you want a frenzy in Europe? talk football (or soccer as we call it here) or even bicycle racing ... even winning the Tour de France 7 times hasn't made that sport interesting to any American except Sheryl Crow.
and how can hockey compete with the development system of the NFL? There are competitive high school teams, and the college football out-teams the NFL!
the day tom cruise makes a hockey movie you know the sport will survive ... but so far even paul newman couldn't save it or pool (twice!) ...
and Americans, like other countries, embrace the sports that their athletes excell in ... you want a frenzy in Europe? talk football (or soccer as we call it here) or even bicycle racing ... even winning the Tour de France 7 times hasn't made that sport interesting to any American except Sheryl Crow.
and how can hockey compete with the development system of the NFL? There are competitive high school teams, and the college football out-teams the NFL!
the day tom cruise makes a hockey movie you know the sport will survive ... but so far even paul newman couldn't save it or pool (twice!) ...
4 on 4
Jeez...I like your idea BlueEyesDude... and im kinda keen on that 4 on 4 league that is going to go this winter instead of the NHL....
Jeez...I like your idea BlueEyesDude... and im kinda keen on that 4 on 4 league that is going to go this winter instead of the NHL....
Hockey is popular in the US but .... it pales in comparison to the big three (football, baseball, basketball). Just look at the TV ratings for Stanley Cup finals vs. the other sports playoffs. Basketball and baseball both get around a 12 in the Nielson ratings, the Superbowl nearly 40, and hockey gets somewhere between 2 and 3. With that poor showing in the US television market, there is simply not enough revenue to support the current NHL salary structure. This is not soley on the players or owners, but both do have some culpability. Hockey players can not expect to make salaries on par with the other sports unless their sport can generate the revenue, and likewise, owners are in for a suprise when the see that their franchises are not going to be worth what they wish. The league overall needs to shake itself into financial reality. I think a lot of us in this post are saying the same thing.
I agree with Wolverine, there are much bigger problems in both countries. If you want a good take on where each sport sits, pick up this week's Hockey News, it lays it out pretty good.
The owners are there to make money, whether they actually like the sport or not. Remember it is a business. The players, like any other employee in a business, want everything they can extract from the employer. However, unions cannot and have not ever run a business, and for the most part, do not share in the financial risks of running the business. If the business shuts down, they're out of work and that's the extent of any risk taking on their part. Who's right/wrong? I don't know, they're both just doing what's being done everyday in the business world. Unfortunately for the union, the average person can look at the average player salary and compare it to their own in the "real" world and say that the players are overpaid. The average person cannot identify with a multi million/billion dollar owner or comprehend what it takes to run a business of that size and nature. Me? I think they're all pricks.
Regardless of what happens, the game will never suffer in Canada, the fans will be back as soon as they yell "game on". In the States...well I've said enough about the average person's interest in hockey down there and it's not being un-American, it's just fact.
The owners are there to make money, whether they actually like the sport or not. Remember it is a business. The players, like any other employee in a business, want everything they can extract from the employer. However, unions cannot and have not ever run a business, and for the most part, do not share in the financial risks of running the business. If the business shuts down, they're out of work and that's the extent of any risk taking on their part. Who's right/wrong? I don't know, they're both just doing what's being done everyday in the business world. Unfortunately for the union, the average person can look at the average player salary and compare it to their own in the "real" world and say that the players are overpaid. The average person cannot identify with a multi million/billion dollar owner or comprehend what it takes to run a business of that size and nature. Me? I think they're all pricks.
Regardless of what happens, the game will never suffer in Canada, the fans will be back as soon as they yell "game on". In the States...well I've said enough about the average person's interest in hockey down there and it's not being un-American, it's just fact.
