The NHL 2004-2005 Season (LOCKOUT! now over) (1 Viewer)

[Jason Seaver]

Except I wouldn't exactly call baseball unhealthy; it's just got someone at the top who claimed it was. I don't know how for-real the individual NHL franchises' woes are, but the sport's national profile in the US has certainly dropped.

 

[Lew Crippen]

And that someone happens to own one of the smaller-market teams.

There are (according to most, sort-of reliable sources) two , possibly three MLB franchises in real trouble.

 

[Sami Kallio]

If there is a salary cap, more and more players are going to play in Europe where the salaries are rising. Not necessarily bad for hockey but definately bad for NHL. Maybe NHL will fold and the next hockey major league will form in Europe. Something the owners have to consider if they truely are low-balling as there is no monopoly.

NHL is the major hockey league simply because it pays the most, if that changes most of European players are staying home. That would dillute the talent level even more and I don't see NHL surviving with just the North American players.

 

[Richard Travale]

Hmm, I was wondering about something. If there is no season, do the teams that did poorly last year (Carolina, Pittsburgh, Washington) still get first crack at Sidney Crosby next year at the entry draft?

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

My guess is that this would have to then be negotiated as well, once the season were officially canceled.

Baseball is in a lot better shape than the NHL with attendence and television ratings, and honestly the TV contract for MLB is not that bad especially when compared to the NHL, sure its no NFL but there is no other NFL.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

In this area (and Chicago, Boston, Minnesota, etc.) hockey as a sport in general -- not just the NHL -- is very big. The little league programs have tremendous participation, it's played at the high school level, OHL junior teams sell out 4,000 seat arenas, college hockey draws well (and is televised locally), and IHL minor league hockey also gets good attendence numbers. The local OHL junior team -- the Plymouth Whalers -- even have their games broadcast on local radio.

In places like Arizona, Florida and North Carolina, the sport is a novelty -- like arena football or indoor soccer. The team will draw some interest if it's playing well, but does not have the widespread hardcore following to sustain a franchise during the off years. How many Florida Panther fans stuck around after the team fell back into mediocrity following their one Stanley Cup Finals appearance? The arena in Raleigh, NC was a tomb one year after the Hurricanes appeared in the Finals.

Chris, the game may be played indoors, but the warm weather cities just do not care about the sport of hockey in the same way as the northern US and Canadian cities.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Make way for the next NHL franchises, the Tuktoyuktuk Tundra, the Yellowknife Snowshoes, Inuvik Icebergs and the Paulatuk Mucklucks.

 

[Moe Maishlish]

Financially, they'd probably do better than a lot of the southern teams! At least the residents of those area have seen a snoflake in their lifetime!

Then again, it's sad how many former Canadian teams (Winnipeg, Quebec, etc) have been moved south of the border because of financial problems and/or the need for the NHL to expand to "bigger" markets.

Then you have the "lesser known" Canadian cities like Hamilton and Thunder Bay (both in ontario) who are starving for an NHL team... and would probably sell out every game...

Moe.

 

[Angelo.M]

Agreed. Lies, damned lies and statistics, and all that. But, I have no problem believing that there are teams operating at a loss.

 

[Prentice Cotham]

The NHL did hire Levitt, a former SEC chairman, to perform an independent audit on 2003. He found the 273 million in losses.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1733664

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> The US market isn't the only one available to you. There are other opportunities in Europe that pay comparably.

Maybe so, but I thought the laws in Europe made it really hard for Americans to get jobs there. Same for Canada, from what I've heard.


> In places like Arizona, Florida and North Carolina, the sport is a novelty

I guess that's why there are at least 5 ice rinks within an hour of me, then, and hockey leagues I could join if I played.


> the warm weather cities just do not care about the sport of hockey in the same way as the northern US and Canadian cities.

Cities do not have brains and therefore cannot care about anything. Half the people down here during hockey season are from the north anyway.

Hockey is doing better in Florida than in some parts of Canada.

It's an indoor game. Weather has nothing to do with it.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

The problem is that the NHLPA did not have any input into his selection. The only way such an approach will work is:

1) both parties agree on a mutually acceptable third party auditor
2) the owners provide full access to their books.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Neither do I. I’m merely skeptical that things are as bad as portrayed.

 

[Angelo.M]

I'm skeptical as well, particularly with, for example, the Rangers claiming a $40 million loss in '02-'03.

 

[Bob-N]

You're kidding right? Maybe it's a little inflated but look at the salaries of the guys on the team. Lindros, Bure (are they still paying his salary?), Messier? Those guys are making abundle. I'm sure Leetch is making pretty good money too.

Regardless, businesses and the SEC still have problems accounting for the "real" numbers of revenue and expenses. How in the world will the league and players agree on a standard way to calculate this stuff? That will take months in itself. It still sounds like an excuse.

I still say it's looking really grim for the season to start at all. I guess we'll see in the coming weeks once things calm down.

 

[Richard Travale]

Madden gets squeezed by the union just like Steve Thomas did.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=99014

Poor guys. They want to speak their minds and then the union pressures them into retracting their statements like this.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Other sports owners and unions have solved the problem. You are correct in that it will take a while. The point is that both sides have had not just months, but years. That it has come to this is an indication of mismanagement on both sides.

I don’t think that we will have a season this year at all.

 

[Sami Kallio]

Now what happens if players don't like what the union is doing? Say player X is unhappy and doesn't want the union to represent him anymore? Personnel changes possible in NHLPA or is the player X and others on his side just screwed?

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

This is not a very likely scenario, as usually players are pretty solidly behind their unions. If enough players didn't like what the Union was doing they could call for a change in Union leadership I suppose.

The important thing is that because this is a lockout and not a strike, a player can't really cross the picket line. The owners aren't using replacement players they're not letting anyone play for them, even if a player were completely in agreement with ownership on this issue.

Even if this were a strike though, it would be very unlikely for a player to cross the line because he would basically be ostricized by every other player that supported the union.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Two different questions, Sami.

A little background (I’m not trying to be patronizing, but I don’t know how much you know about how this works). Each club’s players elect a union representative (just like most unions). The representatives are the ones who decide which professionals to pick to represent them. They are also the ones who decide the agenda of the union and the priority of each item. This can be from really mundane things like how much meal money players get when on the road and how many games can be played back-to-back, to the very high visibility items like ‘no salary cap’. In theory, each player representative meets with his teammates and discusses the issues that the player reps and the hired professionals believe are most important. The players tell their player representative how to vote and what positions to take.

Right now the public position of the union is that their highest priority item and the one which is non-negotiable is the salary cap. Of course, this position must be maintained even if the union is of a mood to be flexible, as otherwise they will be steamrolled by the owners.

Now as to your question: if the players as a whole are dissatisfied with the positions the union takes, they have to instruct their player reps to take a different position or vote in new player reps. Likewise the player representatives have to convince each other to take a new direction. In some cases this may involve replacing some or all of the hired professionals.

When a new contract is drawn up all of the players vote (an up or down vote) on the new contract. Normally the union recommends adoption of the contract, but there are instances where they present the new deal, but don’t recommend it. The membership is free to accept or reject.

You second part of the question, as to an individual player, is, in your terms, not mine, ‘he is screwed’.

This is because the overall contract is with the players as a body and not with each individual player (individual contracts are between a club and a player and include things like salary, bonuses, etc.). Individual players are not free to act outside of the union/owner contract, although within those limits, he is free to do his own deal.

For example, right now a player can get as high a salary as he can get, without limit. But he can only deal with the clubs that the terms of the overall agreement that specify things like free agency, allow.

If he wants to sign with a club that those terms won’t allow, he cannot do so—and is, as you put it, screwed.

The same with the salary cap item. If he wants to accept a salary cap and start the season, but most of his teammates do not, he really won’t have much of a chance of changing his player reps mind. And he is screwed. But then his teammates are not.