NHL, closer to agreement...Finally!

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm

The agreement reportedly includes a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax that would kick in at the midway point between the salary floor and the salary cap.

The resulting luxury tax dollars would be redistributed among lower-revenue teams.

If the numbers are accurate, the union will be accepting a deal much lower than the last major proposal before the NHL season was cancelled in February.

Nothing in writting yet, but they might be a season after all.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:10 pm

A season with an abundance of changes as well including shootouts to decide ties, larger nets, and smaller goalie equipment.
If you're an NHL fan...you better like change because changes are coming.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:14 pm

Consider the league has lost a lot of potential revenue (the $60MM from ESPN the biggest example), it is no surprise that the proposed cap is much lower.

This shows how the union leadership did their members no justice by playing hardball so long. What is it, about $10MM lower than last year's cap? That leaves the players (potentially) out over $300MM dollars per year for salaries.

That league is screwed, the core fanbase, while hardcore, just isn't big enough and they pissed off too many casual fans.

I'll be excited to have it back, but ticket prices better be cheaper or else I won't even make it to my 1-2 games per year.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:17 pm

tjung0831 wrote:A season with an abundance of changes as well including shootouts to decide ties, larger nets, and smaller goalie equipment.
If you're an NHL fan...you better like change because changes are coming.

There's good coverage at nhl.com of the three-day "camp" in which NHL GMs and executives experimented with different equipment, bigger nets and rules changes in an attempt to add more offense to the game.

Check it out.

Take care,
PK

rubba19 · Post by **rubba19** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:22 pm

They need to change more than on-ice activities.

Better marketing, fan interaction, etc.

and for gosh sakes, drop the $80+ a ticket that drives away a large part of the fanbase.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:25 pm

Not to mention the dissapearing act of probably 1-2 teams based in the US. My guess: Nashville, Columbus, Carolina? That's probably going to be a big issue, in my opinion Bettman allowed the NHL to expand too fast and I also heard that perhaps the teams in Anaheim & Phoenix are in trouble.
The ESPN deal was huge, now the league has to find another TV contract.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:26 pm

pk500 wrote:
tjung0831 wrote:A season with an abundance of changes as well including shootouts to decide ties, larger nets, and smaller goalie equipment.
If you're an NHL fan...you better like change because changes are coming.
There's good coverage at nhl.com of the three-day "camp" in which NHL GMs and executives experimented with different equipment, bigger nets and rules changes in an attempt to add more offense to the game.

Check it out.

Take care,
PK

Yeah and let me go on record to be the first one to pick next years Stanley Cup champion. Are you ready for this...

2006 Stanley Cup Champion - Buffalo Sabres

A wealth of young talent at all positions in a newer younger NHL makes the Sabres the front runner in my eyes. They have loads of up and coming offensive talent that will thrive in a much wider open NHL game.

rubba19 · Post by **rubba19** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:28 pm

10spro wrote:Not to mention the dissapearing act of probably 1-2 teams based in the US. My guess: Nashville, Columbus, Carolina? That's probably going to be a big issue, in my opinion Bettman allowed the NHL to expand too fast and I also heard that perhaps the teams in Anaheim & Phoenix are in trouble.
The ESPN deal was huge, now the league has to find another TV contract.

10spro, ESPN marketed the NHL poorly. Any real fan shouldn't be sad that ESPN dropped hockey.

Heard the USA network is looking into it. Better option.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:30 pm

Phoenix isn't going anywhere. With Gretzky at the helm and a brand new arena (well two years old now) in Glendale, they won't be folding them any time soon. What do you tell the city when you bone out after two years? It's necessary for the survival of that city...it was a dump until they starting building the arena, the shopping and all of the surround homes. No way in hell it is eliminated.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:32 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:Phoenix isn't going anywhere. With Gretzky at the helm and a brand new arena (well two years old now) in Glendale, they won't be folding them any time soon. What do you tell the city when you bone out after two years? It's necessary for the survival of that city...it was a dump until they starting building the arena, the shopping and all of the surround homes. No way in hell it is eliminated.

Scott is correct, Gretzky has the Coyotes right where he wants them. They have some good young talent as well. They will be cup contenders right off the bat.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 pm

rubba19 wrote:Heard the USA network is looking into it. Better option.

Whoa...then it can get even worse ratings than it did when it was still in existence. USA...are you kidding?

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:38 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
rubba19 wrote:Heard the USA network is looking into it. Better option.
Whoa...then it can get even worse ratings than it did when it was still in existence. USA...are you kidding?

At one time Ted Turner was interested in the TV rights. I would love to see TNT do something.
One thing is for sure, I'm a huge hockey fan and I didn't miss the game last year. I think it needed to be shutdown. Now with the potential return i'm as excited as ever and looking forward to it without a doubt!

rubba19 · Post by **rubba19** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:39 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
rubba19 wrote:Heard the USA network is looking into it. Better option.
Whoa...then it can get even worse ratings than it did when it was still in existence. USA...are you kidding?

Can't be any worse than ESPN. USA is probably on almost as many networks as ESPN is...

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:42 pm

Whichever network, someone that knows the game and telecast it properly, plz! Being the 1st proffesional team sport to lose the whole season is embarrasing enough, thanks to the "I don't care attitude" by players and the league alike. Regarding the many changes that are being discussed, probably eliminating the red line will be the one that will pass, as most Hockey purists will hate the larger nets (especially if you're a goalie) and making bigger rinks at this point in NA is not that popular.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:43 pm

rubba19 wrote:Can't be any worse than ESPN. USA is probably on almost as many networks as ESPN is...

Sure it can...guys, almost instinctively tune into ESPN, regardless of the time of day. If there is a game or something on, they might leave it on the channel. Now, who tunes into USA? Unless you're looking for an epsidoe of Silk Stalkings, there is virtually no reason to even go anywhere near that channel. At least on ESPN, you might catch a couple casual fans flipping through the channel to see what is on. That won't happen on USA.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:45 pm

10spro wrote:...making bigger rinks at this point in NA is not that popular.

Well that's not because the "game" would suffer...it's because the owners would be sacraficing a couple rows of "premium" seating. No way in hell that passes. They don't lose money when they make the pads smaller or the goals bigger...when you start cutting into their bottom line, they don't like that.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:53 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:...it's because the owners would be sacraficing a couple rows of "premium" seating. No way in hell that passes. They don't lose money when they make the pads smaller or the goals bigger...when you start cutting into their bottom line, they don't like that.

Then we'll be back at square one, no one listening to the fans, every owner/ player to their own. Sadly. I think, everything is still in open discussions but to know a possible aggreement is closer is what most NHL fans like to hear.

HouOilers · Post by **HouOilers** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:57 pm

tjung0831 wrote: Yeah and let me go on record to be the first one to pick next years Stanley Cup champion. Are you ready for this...

2006 Stanley Cup Champion - Buffalo Sabres

A wealth of young talent at all positions in a newer younger NHL makes the Sabres the front runner in my eyes. They have loads of up and coming offensive talent that will thrive in a much wider open NHL game.

There you go again! There isn't even a season and you're picking the NHL Champion already in what...June! A year away!

:):) I kid

:)

The problem with the NHL is that it's like the Dreamcast. It's too niche to attract a wider audience. I only started watching the NHL when I was introduced to hockey videogaming around 3 years ago. That Bettman guy has to go. He should get his old job back in the NBA getting coffee for David Stern.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:01 pm

10spro wrote:Whichever network, someone that knows the game and telecast it properly, plz! Being the 1st proffesional team sport to lose the whole season is embarrasing enough, thanks to the "I don't care attitude" by players and the league alike. Regarding the many changes that are being discussed, probably eliminating the red line will be the one that will pass, as most Hockey purists will hate the larger nets (especially if you're a goalie) and making bigger rinks at this point in NA is not that popular.

They ARE NOT going to eliminate the red line....you can bet the house on that one. It's more likely that they will widen the Blue lines instead.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:08 pm

You can be sure that whoever, if anyone, picks up the national TV rights will not be paying the NHL anywhere near the $60mil ESPN was going to pay them.

DB, not only do guys turn on ESPN out of habit, it also tends to be placed lower on the dial. I can't even tell you what channel USA is on, it is somewhere in the 50s, but ESPN is 25 and ESPN2 is 26.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:09 pm

rubba19 wrote:They need to change more than on-ice activities.

Better marketing, fan interaction, etc.

and for gosh sakes, drop the $80+ a ticket that drives away a large part of the fanbase.

That $80 ticket price is essential for teams' survival because NHL franchises earn MUCH, MUCH less from TV revenues and official endorsements than the other three stick-and-ball sports in America, yet there still are NHL players earning $10 million per year.

And that is the conundrum facing the NHL today.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:13 pm

10spro wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:...it's because the owners would be sacraficing a couple rows of "premium" seating. No way in hell that passes. They don't lose money when they make the pads smaller or the goals bigger...when you start cutting into their bottom line, they don't like that.

Then we'll be back at square one, no one listening to the fans, every owner/ player to their own. Sadly. I think, everything is still in open discussions but to know a possible aggreement is closer is what most NHL fans like to hear.

DB is right: Rink sizes NEVER will be increased because owners would lose seat revenue. I think it's too much to ask of owners to trim seating in the name of "improving" the game when there are plenty of options available to help the game without bigger rinks.

The proposed rule change that I like a lot is that the center red line becomes the offsides line once a team enters the offensive zone. The blue line still remains the offsides line when a team is rushing the puck from its end. But once it crosses the blue line, it can pass back all the way to the center red line without being called offsides.

I really think that will open up the ice and help to eliminate the neutral-zone trap, which has done more to ruin hockey than anything on the ice in the last 10 years.

Take care,
PK

HouOilers · Post by **HouOilers** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:14 pm

Dave wrote:You can be sure that whoever, if anyone, picks up the national TV rights will not be paying the NHL anywhere near the $60mil ESPN was going to pay them.

DB, not only do guys turn on ESPN out of habit, it also tends to be placed lower on the dial. I can't even tell you what channel USA is on, it is somewhere in the 50s, but ESPN is 25 and ESPN2 is 26.

That is so true. First channel I press on the remote is ESPN by habit. Even if nothings on, it's still running in the background if I am doing other chores. Last night I was reading a book, then realized half-way into it why the f0ck I have Women's softball on.

HouOilers · Post by **HouOilers** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:17 pm

pk500 wrote:
10spro wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:...it's because the owners would be sacraficing a couple rows of "premium" seating. No way in hell that passes. They don't lose money when they make the pads smaller or the goals bigger...when you start cutting into their bottom line, they don't like that.

Then we'll be back at square one, no one listening to the fans, every owner/ player to their own. Sadly. I think, everything is still in open discussions but to know a possible aggreement is closer is what most NHL fans like to hear.
DB is right: Rink sizes NEVER will be increased because owners would lose seat revenue. I think it's too much to ask of owners to trim seating in the name of "improving" the game when there are plenty of options available to help the game without bigger rinks.

The proposed rule change that I like a lot is that the center red line becomes the offsides line once a team enters the offensive zone. The blue line still remains the offsides line when a team is rushing the puck from its end. But once it crosses the blue line, it can pass back all the way to the center red line without being called offsides.

I really think that will open up the ice and help to eliminate the neutral-zone trap, which has done more to ruin hockey than anything on the ice in the last 10 years.

Take care,
PK

I think getting rid of that blue line will help alot. For example, play a nhl game on XBL. Like 90 percent of those guys have offsides off. Also a penalty shootout to determine a winner probably will help out get more viewers too. but without ESPN, they're sort of down the tube getting another network to pick them up. NBC was probably their only option but their getting football back so I dont think they'll spend anything on the NHL.

lsdean · Post by **lsdean** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:21 pm

tjung0831 wrote:I would love to see TNT do something.

TNT says they are interested.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent ... 1000952284

Levy also told Mediaweek that Turner would be interested in acquiring cable rights to the National Hockey League telecasts now that ESPN has decided not to renew its rights agreement. “We looked at the NHL in the past and were not able to come up with a financial model that worked for us,” Levy said. “But if the NHL approaches us with a model that works for both of us, we would certainly look at it. Hockey is a proven professional sport, so if the NHL has any ideas, we would look at it.”