That's the NHLPA solution.

It's not the only solution.

The NHL's solution is to reduce the amount of money paid to the players, so that teams can achieve profitability.

Look at the Forbes numbers:

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_1_s_a0_

A lot of franchises aren't that far from profitability. Cutting $7 million from expenses would put all but 8 franchises into the black.
- Atomic Wedgie

No the revenue sharing model is shared by the 3 major sports in North America. Yes that is the NHLPA solution, but they are just following the success the other leagues are having using that model.

I was asking Yost this as well, what is so alarming or silly about that? Sure the article makes the SPIN that it is sneaky or propaganda or something... but if you just look at the actual content and questions asked, the NHL is clearly trying to get a bead on where fans are at right now. That sort of research goes on ALL THE TIME in business. And while the article implies underhandedness or grappling a new buzz phrase that will resonate with fans such as "shared sacrifice" I sure didn't see any of that in the actual documents that were provided...
- Senators2112

I'm not sure how you didn't see the photo's of the actual documents provided at the bottom of the article. But they're there.

The NHL isn't doing this focus group to "get a bead on where fans are at right now", they don't need to pay an absurdly expensive former political spin-man out the ass to be told that fans aren't happy about the lockout and blame it mainly on the owners (be it right, wrong, or in between).

Luntz is gauging what does and does not resonate with fans so that he can craft an effective plan to make the average, gullible, hockey-starved fan view the NHL and the owners in a more positive light and/or the PA and the players in a more negative one.

I get why they did it, but the fact that they caught caught doing it is nothing short of a PR disaster for them.

They're spending time and money trying to figure out how to dupe fans into believing their BS instead of using those resources to negotiate and simultaneously complaining that they are losing money and "costs of jet fuel" are rising. It's complete hypocrisy.

I get why they did it, but the fact that they caught caught doing it is nothing short of a PR disaster for them.
- eichiefs9

You are probably right, I just don't see it as anything egregious at all. Market research, gauging opinion, PR strategy, spin-doctoring... call it what you will.

Understand where fans are at on myriad issues.
Get a bead on who they currently support.
Try to get them to tell you what they want to hear to side with you...

I would bet they conduct similar research, maybe with the same firm, every year. It is not uncommon and for a 3B business it is not even remotely expensive.

*shrug*

I'm not sure how you didn't see the photo's of the actual documents provided at the bottom of the article. But they're there.

The NHL isn't doing this focus group to "get a bead on where fans are at right now", they don't need to pay an absurdly expensive former political spin-man out the ass to be told that fans aren't happy about the lockout and blame it mainly on the owners (be it right, wrong, or in between).

Luntz is gauging what does and does not resonate with fans so that he can craft an effective plan to make the average, gullible, hockey-starved fan view the NHL and the owners in a more positive light and/or the PA and the players in a more negative one.

I get why they did it, but the fact that they caught caught doing it is nothing short of a PR disaster for them.

They're spending time and money trying to figure out how to dupe fans into believing their BS and simultaneously complaining that they are losing money and "costs of jet fuel" are rising. It's complete hypocrisy.
- eichiefs9

Agreed. But it has to become big for it to be a disaster. The fact fans didn't react harsher to this below is shocking to me

http://www.theglobeandmai...ial-media/article4558319/

You talk about a potential PR disaster. The league has the revenues it does b/c of those same fans who are making those "uninformed ramblings."

You are probably right, I just don't see it as anything egregious at all. Market research, gauging opinion, PR strategy, spin-doctoring... call it what you will.

Understand where fans are at on myriad issues.
Get a bead on who they currently support.
Try to get them to tell you what they want to hear to side with you...

I would bet they conduct similar research, maybe with the same firm, every year. It is not uncommon and for a 3B business it is not even remotely expensive.

*shrug*
- Senators2112

I'm not saying it's sinister or anything. I get the purpose of what they're doing and don't fault them for trying to use it to their advantage. But unfortunately, for them, it appears highly hypocritical to those of us on the outside. They're spending time and money with this consultant while meeting tables sit unoccupied and progress halts. All while they're publicly complaining about lost revenues and such.

And I did of course peruse the documents as blurry as they were. How is this, for example, evil PR Kool-aid spin doctoring research?



Based on how bad the article made this research SOUND, they provided no evidence of anything really embarrassing in documents, only conjecture: "Gary is a Jew", "shared sacrifice"... calling it "propaganda crafting". Where is this in the docs? Man... time for a double-reverse conspiracy theory, maybe the PLAYERS put this out there. Haha.[/img]

Honestly if the NHL brain trust read this blog they wouldn't even have to invent new ways to try and use their jedi mind trick techniques to get the dumb common fan to be over on their side.

This group is owner lover through and through.

Leave your "shared sacrifice" at home!

Owners voted 30-0 for the lockout.

What is this discord you speak of?
- Atomic Wedgie

30-0. Wow -- haven't seen vote results like that since the demise of the Soviet Union. I take it you weren't serious

And I did of course peruse the documents as blurry as they were. How is this, for example, evil PR Kool-aid spin doctoring research?



Based on how bad the article made this research SOUND, they provided no evidence of anything really embarrassing in documents, only conjecture: "Gary is a Jew", "shared sacrifice"... calling it "propaganda crafting". Where is this in the docs? Man... time for a double-reverse conspiracy theory, maybe the PLAYERS put this out there. Haha.
- Senators2112[/img]

Those questionnaires, at face value, have no bearing on this at all. They're purpose isn't to inform the league if fans give more of a crap about a screaming, bald Caps fan than Sidney Crosby taking a draw against Mikko Koivu. All of that data is going to what Luntz will craft into a finely tuned PR campaign that will try and spin the league/owners in a positive light.

there are definitely a lot of hockey fans, especially those in Canada who buy the owners/Bettman propaganda hook, line and sinker.
- jimbro83

I'm curious why "those in Canada" are more likely to buy the owners line? Enlighten us.

I'm curious why "those in Canada" are more likely to buy the owners line? Enlighten us.
- dawgzhouse

Cuz were dumm

I'm curious why "those in Canada" are more likely to buy the owners line? Enlighten us.
- dawgzhouse

because most of the teams in Canada aren't hurting financially or playing in front of half empty rinks while collecting of the revenue sharing program.

Eck the quicker you stop buying into these sources and realize there will not be a season the better you will feel overall.. Its over..

Eck the quicker you stop buying into these sources and realize there will not be a season the better you will feel overall.. Its over..
- Popcorn Kid

He needs to generate hits....the more hits, the more he gets in advertising.

He needs to generate hits....the more hits, the more he gets in advertising.
- Symba007

Eklund is the Yankees E4

Let's make this easy:

Last years losses:

Phoenix - 24M
NYI - 8M
Florida - 7M
Nashville - 7.5M
Winnipeg - 5.2M
Carolina - 4.4M
Tampa - 8.5M
Minnesota - 6M

These are all teams that were nowhere near the cap, so you can't blame it on spending to the cap.

Others who were closer to the cap:

Columbus - 13M
Buffalo - 5.6M
Washington - 7.5M

There are others that also lost, but not that much.

So, does anyone really think it's feasable to continue losing that much money? Can we really sit there and say the owners are the bad guys to try to cut their losses (not even trying to make more, just LOSE LESS!)

Now, from my example, Washington and Buffalo have ridiculously rich owners, so those teams aren't going anywhere.

But do you really think 7 of the 8 teams in the first group can continue on if the last CBA carried on ad infinitum?

So, if we had that deal last forever, that's basically 7 less teams in the league. And two (Washington and Buffalo) that are only in cause the owners are so stinking rich that they don't mind losing hand over fist.

Here's another fact for ya. San Jose, while selling out almost every game since they were created, has lost money every year. Sure, they've mainly been a cap team, but still. They've NEVER made money. How much longer could that carry on under the old deal?

I'll say it again. If the old CBA continued on forever, there'd eventually be 1/3 less teams in the league.
- Charliebox

So the team that lost 6 million last year had soooooo much money hanging around they paid 2 players 200 million dollars, makes sense, you should google the word gullible if you believe that bs...

So the team that lost 6 million last year had soooooo much money hanging around they paid 2 players 200 million dollars, makes sense, you should google the word gullible if you believe that bs...

- ShootingSemin

You realize they don't just get the entire value of their contract plopped down on a table when they sign it right?

Oh god. For the 100th time on these forums: It's not feasable to continue on this way.

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, under the last CBA (mainly the floor and not the cap), 1/3 of the league's teams are not viable.

You can female dog and moan all you want about how the players are getting screwed. The bottom line is that if they contined on this path ad infinitum, 1/3 of the league's players wouldn't have a job in the NHL!

What do you not understand about that?

Sure, the owners will come out looking like the bad guys again (with Bettman taking the brunt of it), but these are the people who are provding jobs for the players. If they don't have a business (a team), that's 20+ less jobs for the union.

It's really not that difficult.
- Charliebox

Once again, you fail to point out how the owners can hide a good percentage of revenue (and thus, profit) from HRR in the CBA.

They are crying poor when they really aren't as bad off as it seems.

because most of the teams in Canada aren't hurting financially or playing in front of half empty rinks while collecting of the revenue sharing program.
- Symba007

Stretching it a bit to suggest Canadians, in general, support the owners because their teams are healthy. I think a majority of Canadian hockey fans are ticked-off at both sides.

Cuz were dumm
- Canada Cup

Prububly.

"I will say I am a 8 out of 10 on the BS meter today..."

Fixed

Eklund, you're wrong about everything. Do us all a favor and predict the cancellation of the season, then there might be hope. Your phony optimism is annoying and cruel to those who might actually still believe you have even a clue.

Let's make this easy:

Last years losses:

Phoenix - 24M
NYI - 8M
Florida - 7M
Nashville - 7.5M
Winnipeg - 5.2M
Carolina - 4.4M
Tampa - 8.5M
Minnesota - 6M

These are all teams that were nowhere near the cap, so you can't blame it on spending to the cap.

Others who were closer to the cap:

Columbus - 13M
Buffalo - 5.6M
Washington - 7.5M

There are others that also lost, but not that much.

So, does anyone really think it's feasable to continue losing that much money? Can we really sit there and say the owners are the bad guys to try to cut their losses (not even trying to make more, just LOSE LESS!)

Now, from my example, Washington and Buffalo have ridiculously rich owners, so those teams aren't going anywhere.

But do you really think 7 of the 8 teams in the first group can continue on if the last CBA carried on ad infinitum?

So, if we had that deal last forever, that's basically 7 less teams in the league. And two (Washington and Buffalo) that are only in cause the owners are so stinking rich that they don't mind losing hand over fist.

Here's another fact for ya. San Jose, while selling out almost every game since they were created, has lost money every year. Sure, they've mainly been a cap team, but still. They've NEVER made money. How much longer could that carry on under the old deal?

I'll say it again. If the old CBA continued on forever, there'd eventually be 1/3 less teams in the league.
- Charliebox

In any other real business environment then contraction would be the solution. Since neither side would desire that then the owners have to bear some of the responsibility, no, most of the responsibility for creating the present situation. They have continued to award ridiculous contracts to players (Suter, Parise, Weber, etc.); even as we all expected the worse in CBA talks and knew the league would cite rising salaries as a reason they needed to curb those salaries. They don't though as they prefer to insist that the NHLPA bear the bulk of the burden to rectify the finances. That is BS.

You realize they don't just get the entire value of their contract plopped down on a table when they sign it right?
- eichiefs9

Maybe but they still made a commitment and should have done so with the knowledge that their current business model was a dud; as suggested by the presumption they are losing money. If they are struggling, as the owners suggest, to be profitable isn't signing those long term deals risky? Isn't that organization making some large assumptions in this scenario?

Once again, you fail to point out how the owners can hide a good percentage of revenue (and thus, profit) from HRR in the CBA.

They are crying poor when they really aren't as bad off as it seems.
- StayTunedMTC

Very true. Who reported the numbers? I'm sure the NHLPA has some position on that or have their own records on the individual team finances. It does stand to reason that there is room to maneuver when it comes to offering P and L statements of individual teams.