Taro T Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I think the NHL is going to play hardball to get whatever concessions they can get from the players and the IOOC and then ultimately concede (i.e. allow the players to play). This. The Olympics stay. The network wants it and the players want it. If the NHL can't figure out how to market it, that's their problem. I think what bothers the owners is that they know how the sausage is made. The Olympics generates billions in revenue more than the NHL. Where does all that money go? What is more lucrative, being a member of the IOC or being an NHL owner? It is hard to tell with Swiss bank accounts and a winking attitude towards graft. And this. Don't forget that 1 of the most powerful owners also owns NBC. I'd be shocked if the NHL isn't in Korea (right?) for 2018. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Best players in the world in the Olympics. Period. Bill Daly: "As a practical business matter, for the clubs individually, the Olympics have no tangible positive effect," Daly said. "Certainly for the visibility of ice hockey, which is kind of good, big-picture, for the National Hockey League, it's good. Given all the pros and cons, we made a determination that on balance it was more positive to be here than negative, and that's why we're in Sochi." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I will say that if I were the NHL, my position would be that the players at a minimum have to bear the economic risk of getting hurt while playing in the Olympics. Tavares is making $5.5MM (BTW, the Islanders are a Buffalo-Bills-level joke of a franchise, but that is a great contract they got Tavares to sign) this year -- why in the world should the Islanders have to eat $1.8MM or so because he got hurt in the Olympics? It's easy for the players to want to play in the Olympics when there is no downside for them in doing so. No paychecks for any player who gets hurt in the Olympics until that player is back on the ice in as good condition as he was when the Olympic break started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted February 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I ok with being alone on this . The argument of NBC monies no doubt a significant one, but a World Cup of hockey in prime time in U.S in U.S cities of great value as well. I a old guy , 73 now, lucky i around for next Olympics, but stand by my comments, NHL will go to World Cup format they far more interested in growing game in U.S than in Europe on other parts of World, most bums in seats in U.S markets , watching television. Noted on this board, once U.S out of medal round not as avid a following. Can't imagine apart from avid hockey markets many in U.S cared a dam about Canada- Sweden or any other nations competing against each other. Hockey in or out of Olympics not going to change viewship over all apart from when U.S involved. Not sure the NHL or NBC for that matter cares a whip who is watching in Europe . They can and will make more money with a World Cup and is why it will be done . Archive the post, hang me if i wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I will say that if I were the NHL, my position would be that the players at a minimum have to bear the economic risk of getting hurt while playing in the Olympics. Tavares is making $5.5MM (BTW, the Islanders are a Buffalo-Bills-level joke of a franchise, but that is a great contract they got Tavares to sign) this year -- why in the world should the Islanders have to eat $1.8MM or so because he got hurt in the Olympics? It's easy for the players to want to play in the Olympics when there is no downside for them in doing so. No paychecks for any player who gets hurt in the Olympics until that player is back on the ice in as good condition as he was when the Olympic break started. The Islanders should have to pay because this one was specifically agreed upon. Now, why they would agree in the future to pay for something like this is a much better question. The season is too long already. To extend it two weeks just opens things up to a crappier game as some players are more tired and other coast in and out of the Olympic break. I do like the thought of a World Cup instead and, as millbank stated, the possibility of more money there. They can play the games on their terms and get them to be played and aired at a time far more convenient to NBC's viewer audience. The trick would be getting the europeans on board. You could field a good tourney with just 4 teams if you had to, but to be taken seriously they need the euro players playing over in Russia and Sweden to fill out those next 8 or so teams. That and the Russians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 actually they have. As I recall hearing that was one of the concessions the NHL got out of them. you are missing the point. The owners are not assuming all the risk. They are using the games to get more money out of the IOC and to get concessions from the nhlpa. If the owners are so worried about injuries outside of NHL games why are they pushing for a Canada cup/world cup so hard? What revenue are the owners directly making from Olympic games played in Russia? (none) What are they making while their arenas sit empty for 3 weeks while their investments play elsehwere? (none) What cut of merchandizing do they get when someone buys a Kane or Miller USA jersey? (none) Where is the evidence that ticket revenues or viewership will jump post-Olympics due to the these guys playing in Sochi? (there isn't any) Many on this board are focusing almost exclusively on salary risk. That isn't the main consideration. The greater risk is of injury to a key player if it damages their playoff hopes and (worst case scenario) their legitimate Cup shot. Owners make roughly $1 million per playoff game. No Tavares = no playoffs for the Isles = no playoff revenue (although the Isles probably weren't going to get there anyway). The players like the Olympics so that is why they are there (e.g. they were afraid of guys like Ovi going to the KHL if they didn't allow them to play in these Olympics). And, I'm sure there are political considerations with NBC owning both NHL and Olympic coverage. But, the owners don't benefit from their players going to the Olympics. The player and the fans are the ones who benefit. A World Cup played in NHL arenas does benefit the owners. They get direct income from these games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Right cause nhl arenas are used every day for their hockey team...... Arenas get used for more than nhl games. So this idea that the poor owners have empty buildings and are losing money is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Players get hurt, Olympics or not, so injuries aren't the real issue. They probably seek some sort of compensation for lending their players to the olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 i'm not weighing in on what i'd want to happen, i'm responding to what i think will happen. based on how much the players love it, i say NFW the NHL extracts itself from the olympic tournament. at least not until the next CBA gets negotiated. (not that i have the foggiest idea of how the issue's dealt with in the current CBA.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I ok with being alone on this . The argument of NBC monies no doubt a significant one, but a World Cup of hockey in prime time in U.S in U.S cities of great value as well. I a old guy , 73 now, lucky i around for next Olympics, but stand by my comments, NHL will go to World Cup format they far more interested in growing game in U.S than in Europe on other parts of World, most bums in seats in U.S markets , watching television. Noted on this board, once U.S out of medal round not as avid a following. Can't imagine apart from avid hockey markets many in U.S cared a dam about Canada- Sweden or any other nations competing against each other. Hockey in or out of Olympics not going to change viewship over all apart from when U.S involved. Not sure the NHL or NBC for that matter cares a whip who is watching in Europe . They can and will make more money with a World Cup and is why it will be done . Archive the post, hang me if i wrong. That might be true in Canada, but I'm not sure it is true in the US. During the US/Can game in this Olympics, work stopped, people took off and went to bars to watch the game. It was a really big deal. There is no way that would have happened if it was during some sort of World Cup. That was soley because it was the Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I do like the thought of a World Cup instead and, as millbank stated, the possibility of more money there. They can play the games on their terms and get them to be played and aired at a time far more convenient to NBC's viewer audience. The trick would be getting the europeans on board. You could field a good tourney with just 4 teams if you had to, but to be taken seriously they need the euro players playing over in Russia and Sweden to fill out those next 8 or so teams. That and the Russians... I don't think nearly as many people watch a yearly or less hockey tournament. If they did, I think you'd hear more about the world juniors. Just like bobsledding, luge, curling, it's something that people will watch as framed as part of the Olympics. Tell people there's a hockey tournament in September? Snore. What revenue are the owners directly making from Olympic games played in Russia? (none) What are they making while their arenas sit empty for 3 weeks while their investments play elsehwere? (none) What cut of merchandizing do they get when someone buys a Kane or Miller USA jersey? (none) Where is the evidence that ticket revenues or viewership will jump post-Olympics due to the these guys playing in Sochi? (there isn't any) Perhaps there's a 10-year-old asking, "Dad, can we go to a hockey game?". That might be true in Canada, but I'm not sure it is true in the US. During the US/Can game in this Olympics, work stopped, people took off and went to bars to watch the game. It was a really big deal. There is no way that would have happened if it was during some sort of World Cup. That was soley because it was the Olympics. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I don't think nearly as many people watch a yearly or less hockey tournament. If they did, I think you'd hear more about the world juniors. Just like bobsledding, luge, curling, it's something that people will watch as framed as part of the Olympics. Tell people there's a hockey tournament in September? Snore. There's no interest in the US in the world juniors for two main reasons: 1. They are teenagers 2. The vast majority of the players are in leagues that the US audience has no access to. There is no familiarity with the players. If they could find a way to organize a World Cup with NHL players, that immediately draws infinitely more interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) There's no interest in the US in the world juniors for two main reasons: 1. They are teenagers 2. The vast majority of the players are in leagues that the US audience has no access to. There is no familiarity with the players. If they could find a way to organize a World Cup with NHL players, that immediately draws infinitely more interest. I think you'd get a majority of NHL fans, and maybe a few "outsiders". I mean, curling is pretty popular during the Olympics, but I've *never* seen a mention of the World Championships that happen every year (every other year?). The World Championships start in a month, what country is it hosted in this year? (without looking it up... I had to look it up already to see if there was a curling championship!) Edited February 26, 2014 by MattPie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I ok with being alone on this . The argument of NBC monies no doubt a significant one, but a World Cup of hockey in prime time in U.S in U.S cities of great value as well. I a old guy , 73 now, lucky i around for next Olympics, but stand by my comments, NHL will go to World Cup format they far more interested in growing game in U.S than in Europe on other parts of World, most bums in seats in U.S markets , watching television. Noted on this board, once U.S out of medal round not as avid a following. Can't imagine apart from avid hockey markets many in U.S cared a dam about Canada- Sweden or any other nations competing against each other. Hockey in or out of Olympics not going to change viewship over all apart from when U.S involved. Not sure the NHL or NBC for that matter cares a whip who is watching in Europe . They can and will make more money with a World Cup and is why it will be done . Archive the post, hang me if i wrong. I don't see World Cup / Olympics as an either / or thing. I'd be shocked if thry both weren't occurring w/in a decade. Have them offset by a year so they don't interfere w/ the summer games. They could even have a degree of tie-in to each other by having the WC the year after the Olympics and using the results from that for seeding. Still to this day, the best hockey I ever saw was Canada / USSR back in CC '87. US beating Canada in '94 was also great hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Keep the NHLers at home. There is too much risk and too little reward for NHL owners. Olympic hockey is amazing, i love it, as i do other Olympic sports, but from a business standpoint, it makes little to no sense. Atleast 6 major injuries from the Olympics that will effect NHL teams. Owners get nothing in return from a money-making machine that Olympic hockey is, and lose it all when one of their stars gets injured. No thanks. The real question we should be asking is, what solution is there? If pros are still allowed to attend, then Russians will dominate. The best idea i've heard, was similar to soccer. Send a U-23 squad. Don't stop the NHL but give teams the decision if they want to send a player under the age of 23 to the Olympics. Therefore, you still have a high level of hockey and some NHLers still participate. Also, Brad May pointed out last night during one of the period breaks that NHL teams with a high number of players at the Olympics - they have a statistical tendency to show a down-turn after the Olympics. That would really suck to be a fan of a team with good playoff chances to either see a star starter injured during irrelevant Olympic games, or the entire team lose focus or whatever and take a post-Olympic downturn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I saw a commentary, I think by NBC during their Olympic coverage, that said there is no economic incentive for the owners. They shutter their arenas for two weeks. Arenas generate their income along with their TV packages. Workers who rely on the arenas for income don't get paid during that timeframe. The owners risk injury to their star players (mostly the Crosby-types are going while the John Scotts-types aren't). They also made the point (not sure I believe) that the cooling off period for their team means some fans don't come back. And lastly, it majorly screws with team schedules as they need to account for the two week period. I agree with whomever said up thread that if Crosby or OV received a season-ending concussion as a result of those six games played, the conversation would be different. I think on the plus side, non-Olympic players get a chance to heal. My guess is NHL players in the Olympics are here to stay. The train has left the station on this. Then they are idiots and its their own fault for losing money. Those arenas are all capable of holding concerts and other events when the teams aren't playing, and those events bring in money for their owners. If the owner doesn't own the arena and make money off of non NHL events, then they still aren't losing money cause its not like the league cuts down the number of games it plays because of the olympics, they still play the same number of home games. The issue is the risk of losing a top player (cash cow) at the games and it costing them when the season starts. Losing Tavares for the rest of this season may have been the best thing for the Islanders, now they can throw away the rest of this season where they were not likely to make the playoffs anyways and end up with a much higher pick who can come in and play with a healthy Tavares next season. If Tavares played they may have still had hope for a playoff spot and continued to think they had a chance. The Olympics stay. The network wants it and the players want it. If the NHL can't figure out how to market it, that's their problem. I think what bothers the owners is that they know how the sausage is made. The Olympics generates billions in revenue more than the NHL. Where does all that money go? What is more lucrative, being a member of the IOC or being an NHL owner? It is hard to tell with Swiss bank accounts and a winking attitude towards graft. I wonder if networks like NBC continue to offer big money for the rights to the NHL if they remove their players from the Olympics. The Olympic tournament gets alot of people and fans riled up for hockey, and the sport can use all the hype/help it can get. Before NBC they were on the Outdoor Life Network, that was the best deal they could get. The Gold Medal Vancouver game really helped get the country back into the game, and I'm sure Millers performance helped the Sabres bring in some additional revenue that they may not have received if it wasn't for that exposure. What revenue are the owners directly making from Olympic games played in Russia? (none) What are they making while their arenas sit empty for 3 weeks while their investments play elsehwere? (none) What cut of merchandizing do they get when someone buys a Kane or Miller USA jersey? (none) Where is the evidence that ticket revenues or viewership will jump post-Olympics due to the these guys playing in Sochi? (there isn't any) Many on this board are focusing almost exclusively on salary risk. That isn't the main consideration. The greater risk is of injury to a key player if it damages their playoff hopes and (worst case scenario) their legitimate Cup shot. Owners make roughly $1 million per playoff game. No Tavares = no playoffs for the Isles = no playoff revenue (although the Isles probably weren't going to get there anyway). The players like the Olympics so that is why they are there (e.g. they were afraid of guys like Ovi going to the KHL if they didn't allow them to play in these Olympics). And, I'm sure there are political considerations with NBC owning both NHL and Olympic coverage. But, the owners don't benefit from their players going to the Olympics. The player and the fans are the ones who benefit. A World Cup played in NHL arenas does benefit the owners. They get direct income from these games. Contracts are insured, NHL arenas can hold concerts and other events during the olympics for the few weeks the NHL teams isn't playing (like when they go on long road trips) and its not like they aren't going to play the same amount of home games in an olympic year like they do in a non olympic year. Also do you not think that after the Vancouver Olympics the Sabres didn't see a boost in Miller jersey sales? Do you think the NHL or atleast NHLPA have a cut in the olympic merchandising for their players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I'm a bit confused as to how the Olympics actually gained exposure for the NHL. The games were stuck on the same cable network that already airs the NHL. So they're not exactly bringing in a new audience there. Now if they had gotten some prime time on NBC, that's a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I think you'd get a majority of NHL fans, and maybe a few "outsiders". I mean, curling is pretty popular during the Olympics, but I've *never* seen a mention of the World Championships that happen every year (every other year?). The World Championships start in a month, what country is it hosted in this year? (without looking it up... I had to look it up already to see if there was a curling championship!) And how many NHLers would agree to want to play in their offseason in a tournament?The Olympics are a big deal, more so in other countries then in Canada and the US. How many players turn down going to play in the world cup tournament over in Europe thats played after the NHL regular season is over? Whats the benefit to the player giving up time off that they can use to vacation and recouperate from the NHL season to go play in some tournament that was just made up to replace their involvement in the olympics? Win a gold medal in the olympics playing in against the very best for your country to win a gold medal in an event with a rich history, or win a trophy or medal in a tournament that was just made up to be played in your offseason? I'm a bit confused as to how the Olympics actually gained exposure for the NHL. The games were stuck on the same cable network that already airs the NHL. So they're not exactly bringing in a new audience there. Now if they had gotten some prime time on NBC, that's a different story. How many people tune into olympic coverage to cheer on their country and watch a sport they might not otherwise watch? You don't think there were people who tuned in to watch Canada vs the US that may not have known half the players playing but cared because it was Canada vs the US? I don't watch womans hockey or know who half the players were for team Canada, but I watched the Olympic coverage of their games and know am aware that there are leagues that they play in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 You don't think there were people who tuned in to watch Canada vs the US that may not have known half the players playing but cared because it was Canada vs the US? I don't watch womans hockey or know who half the players were for team Canada, but I watched the Olympic coverage of their games and know am aware that there are leagues that they play in The problem is that when someone thinks about tuning into the Olympics, they switch directly to NBC, not one of the its offshoot cable networks. The people who do go hunting for those type of games are already very well aware of hockey, just like you watched the women's game because you are already a hockey fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I suppose someone less lazy than me could simply look up what ratings the NHL averages on NBCSN and compare it to what the Olympic hockey averaged. I know it's not a perfect comparison because of time slots and whatnot, but it'd be interesting nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I suppose someone less lazy than me could simply look up what ratings the NHL averages on NBCSN and compare it to what the Olympic hockey averaged. I know it's not a perfect comparison because of time slots and whatnot, but it'd be interesting nonetheless. Do with them what you will.... USA Finland bronze game, Buffalo ratings, 4.3 rating and 27,000 viewers NBCSN Wednesday night games, in Buffalo Chicago- Detroit .7 rating and 4,000 viewers Buffalo-Boston 6.5 rating 41,000 viewers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.