John Jaeckel: The Pressure Is All On . . . Bettman

Lets hope something gets done.... Thurs night The Flyers would be playing the Bruins for the first game of the 12/13 season. Not real happy about that.
We can only sit back and wait

It is unfortunate that contraction, which the NHLPA has zero control over, does not seem to be in the sight-lines of the NHL.

Eliminating 2 of the worst franchises (according to losses) in the league should reduce the revenue sharing dollars that are used. At the same time the skill level of the league will rise as the lower end players (looking at you Paul Bissonette and Krys Barch) will get pushed down and out.

Moving 2 more of the bottom franchises to better locations (Que City and ??) will increase the financial stability as well and again reduce the revenue sharing from team to team.

My overview is fairly simplistic, but I think it is still very accurate as to what would help.

It is unfortunate that contraction, which the NHLPA has zero control over, does not seem to be in the sight-lines of the NHL.

Eliminating 2 of the worst franchises (according to losses) in the league should reduce the revenue sharing dollars that are used. At the same time the skill level of the league will rise as the lower end players (looking at you Paul Bissonette and Krys Barch) will get pushed down and out.

Moving 2 more of the bottom franchises to better locations (Que City and ??) will increase the financial stability as well and again reduce the revenue sharing from team to team.

My overview is fairly simplistic, but I think it is still very accurate as to what would help.
- OilHorse

Bang on. And to me, over-expansion/no contraction comes back to Bettman. The owners aren't (all) dumb.

Moving franchises likely just means rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If the US ever goes back to a stronger dollar (and/or other factors) could make more favorable markets today less favorable in the future. But I do agree it would certainly make sense shorter term.

The two sides can't even agree on what revenue is. Until that is agreed to nothing is going to get done. The owners are not going to come out on the short end this time.

I am sick of hearing how the players lost the last contract. They won. The increase in pay connected to revenue increase was clearly underestimated by the owners.

The NHL expanded to places they shouldn't. How do you fix that? I don't see them moving more franchises. It's still beyond comprehension how they thought having two Florida teams was a better idea than having 2 in Ontario

The two sides can't even agree on what revenue is. Until that is agreed to nothing is going to get done. The owners are not going to come out on the short end this time.

I am sick of hearing how the players lost the last contract. They won. The increase in pay connected to revenue increase was clearly underestimated by the owners.

The NHL expanded to places they shouldn't. How do you fix that? I don't see them moving more franchises. It's still beyond comprehension how they thought having two Florida teams was a better idea than having 2 in Ontario
- Pelle31

I totally agree with everything you say. They are back in this situation because everyone thought they won 6 years ago. "Cost certainty" really did nothing to address corporate welfare for ill-conceived expansion, or irresponsible individual owners.

But again, doesn't that all come back to Bettman?

Which is why ultimately, he is under as much pressure to find an agreeable definition of revenue as he is to make a deal. IMO, the two essentially mean the same thing.

Agreed.

Disagree that "most" NHL players have found other gigs. There are what, 100, maybe 125 NHL players who have signed in Europe? Maybe 100 others who are able to play in the AHL? With my math, suspect though it may be, that leaves more than 400 who have not.

The players have talked a good game up until now. That is going to start changing, maybe not a week from now, maybe not even a month from now, but it will, once those paycheck days start spinning past on the calendar.

Eliminating 2 of the worst franchises (according to losses) in the league should reduce the revenue sharing dollars that are used. At the same time the skill level of the league will rise as the lower end players (looking at you Paul Bissonette and Krys Barch) will get pushed down and out.

Moving 2 more of the bottom franchises to better locations (Que City and ??) will increase the financial stability as well and again reduce the revenue sharing from team to team.

My overview is fairly simplistic, but I think it is still very accurate as to what would help.
- OilHorse

Moving 2 teams and contracting 2 others will push up the average revenue per team; that in turn forces up the cap ceiling and the cap floor some more. That in turn makes the remaining low-revenue teams who were already struggling that much weaker, and pushes a few of the "we're OK right now" teams down into the "OK, we need some help" area. It will decrease the absolute dollars needed for revenue sharing, but the relative need will actually increase for all remaining teams. Dropping the players share down to 50% helps alleviate this some, but if how the cap is calculated isn't changed, in 6 years we could easily be back in the same position we're currently in: high-revenue teams driving up the cap, low-revenue teams struggling to hit the floor, and owners saying "the players need to take less so everyone can stay afloat."

Not to mention, contraction is never seen as a good thing. If contraction was really such a great idea, MLB would have whacked the Expos and Twins, the NFL would whack the Jaguars and some other team [possibly the Vikings], and the NBA would whack 4-6 teams.

The only expansion one can "pin on Bettman" is the 1997 expansion. Even then, that was largely driven by the owners who had picked up $50 million for Florida and Anaheim in the 1994 expansion and were looking to grab more cash. [Note: if one realizes Bettman works for the owners and not the other way around, I'm curious how expansion is squarely on Bettman's shoulders and the owners were/are blameless.] That said, look at the candidate cities: Houston had 3 bids but only one was really strong, and the only reason it didn't win was because of questions about arena availability. Quebec City didn't put in a bid, Hartford hadn't yet lost the Whalers [Karmanos even talked about moving the team to Hampton Roads if their expansion bid failed], Raleigh-Durham applied but withdrew when Karmanos moved the Whalers there, and Hamilton's bid was so bad the league refunded the non-refundable application fee. The only other city to apply and not get a team was Oklahoma City.

Besides, even now expansion fees aren't included in HRR and so all of that money goes straight to the owners. That means there's all kinds of incentive for the league to expand if the owners are looking for more cash; does anyone really think they're going to whack 2 teams instead?

Finally: the idea that contraction would get rid of guys like Bissonette and Barch is quite debateable. It's like the ever-popular idea that creeps up every 4 years that "if we make the ice Olympic-sized, things will open up on the ice and we'll have fantastic, exciting hockey." We have fantastic, exciting hockey every 4 years because we have the world's best players on the ice; that's not going to happen during the regular season. Teams will still keep low-skilled slugs as 4th liners for the agitator/enforcer aspect; the guys who will suffer are the tweener 3rd/4th line guys who have 10-12 goal ability and can play passable defense, but aren't good enough to hold down a full-time 3rd line spot and can't really physically intimidate the opposition.

Disagree that "most" NHL players have found other gigs. There are what, 100, maybe 125 NHL players who have signed in Europe? Maybe 100 others who are able to play in the AHL? With my math, suspect though it may be, that leaves more than 400 who have not.

The players have talked a good game up until now. That is going to start changing, maybe not a week from now, maybe not even a month from now, but it will, once those paycheck days start spinning past on the calendar.
- MartiniMan

Good point, I kinda realized after posting that was an overestimation. Thx.

I still think more pressure is on Bettman.

It is unfortunate that contraction, which the NHLPA has zero control over, does not seem to be in the sight-lines of the NHL.

Eliminating 2 of the worst franchises (according to losses) in the league should reduce the revenue sharing dollars that are used. At the same time the skill level of the league will rise as the lower end players (looking at you Paul Bissonette and Krys Barch) will get pushed down and out.

Moving 2 more of the bottom franchises to better locations (Que City and ??) will increase the financial stability as well and again reduce the revenue sharing from team to team.

My overview is fairly simplistic, but I think it is still very accurate as to what would help.
- OilHorse

Any revenue-sharing money saved by contraction, would be lost in the buyout of the two owners whose franchises are being contracted. That's why it's not a viable option.

Any revenue-sharing money saved by contraction, would be lost in the buyout of the two owners whose franchises are being contracted. That's why it's not a viable option.
- buffalofan19

Yep. There is TONS more money to be made if you open a new franchise in say Hamilton than it would moving Phoenix to Hamilton....Bettman expanded in the wrong areas and now they don't know what to do

Moving 2 teams and contracting 2 others will push up the average revenue per team; that in turn forces up the cap ceiling and the cap floor some more. That in turn makes the remaining low-revenue teams who were already struggling that much weaker, and pushes a few of the "we're OK right now" teams down into the "OK, we need some help" area. It will decrease the absolute dollars needed for revenue sharing, but the relative need will actually increase for all remaining teams. Dropping the players share down to 50% helps alleviate this some, but if how the cap is calculated isn't changed, in 6 years we could easily be back in the same position we're currently in: high-revenue teams driving up the cap, low-revenue teams struggling to hit the floor, and owners saying "the players need to take less so everyone can stay afloat."

Not to mention, contraction is never seen as a good thing. If contraction was really such a great idea, MLB would have whacked the Expos and Twins, the NFL would whack the Jaguars and some other team
- Irish Blues[possibly the Vikings], and the NBA would whack 4-6 teams.

The only expansion one can "pin on Bettman" is the 1997 expansion. Even then, that was largely driven by the owners who had picked up $50 million for Florida and Anaheim in the 1994 expansion and were looking to grab more cash. [Note: if one realizes Bettman works for the owners and not the other way around, I'm curious how expansion is squarely on Bettman's shoulders and the owners were/are blameless.] That said, look at the candidate cities: Houston had 3 bids but only one was really strong, and the only reason it didn't win was because of questions about arena availability. Quebec City didn't put in a bid, Hartford hadn't yet lost the Whalers [Karmanos even talked about moving the team to Hampton Roads if their expansion bid failed], Raleigh-Durham applied but withdrew when Karmanos moved the Whalers there, and Hamilton's bid was so bad the league refunded the non-refundable application fee. The only other city to apply and not get a team was Oklahoma City.

Besides, even now expansion fees aren't included in HRR and so all of that money goes straight to the owners. That means there's all kinds of incentive for the league to expand if the owners are looking for more cash; does anyone really think they're going to whack 2 teams instead?

Finally: the idea that contraction would get rid of guys like Bissonette and Barch is quite debateable. It's like the ever-popular idea that creeps up every 4 years that "if we make the ice Olympic-sized, things will open up on the ice and we'll have fantastic, exciting hockey." We have fantastic, exciting hockey every 4 years because we have the world's best players on the ice; that's not going to happen during the regular season. Teams will still keep low-skilled slugs as 4th liners for the agitator/enforcer aspect; the guys who will suffer are the tweener 3rd/4th line guys who have 10-12 goal ability and can play passable defense, but aren't good enough to hold down a full-time 3rd line spot and can't really physically intimidate the opposition.

Nice, well thought out response. I will only "contest" these two points.

Contraction is "bad" why? Perception?

And I can tell you at least in part why MLB and the NBA have not contracted: the players' associations, and that is likely part (though just part) of why it won't happen in the NHL. I will also tell you that unless I am mistaken, the current CBA and structure of the franchises DOES cost the bigger market teams inordinately in terms of supporting weaker, failing franchises in poorly chosen markets. If the league owns just one money-losing teams, the owners lose money. The owners ARE the league.

Further, you seem to miss two huge tenets of my argument.

Although the pressure is on Bettman, I do agree completely that he and the owners are one and the same. The problem is, the owners WILL NOT blame themselves for over-expansion or anything else. They will blame Bettman if it starts costing them considerable money. That's just human nature and how business works. You know what rolls downhill.

Second, sure— expansion can mean more cash for owners—just like raising taxes means more cash for the government. But there's an opposite side to the issue that you can't just ignore. If the CBA and the state of all the league's franchises—specifically money-losing expansion franchises— are costing the owner's millions, how is expansion inherently good for them and contraction not?

Thanks

Yep. There is TONS more money to be made if you open a new franchise in say Hamilton than it would moving Phoenix to Hamilton....Bettman expanded in the wrong areas and now they don't know what to do
- Pelle31

The idea of expansion isn't just to get revenue, it's to get revenue from untapped sources. Moving Phoenix to Hamilton is a band-aid, and will stop the bleeding. However, the problem with expansion wasn't that it happened. It's that it happened way too fast. Adding 4 teams in 4 years when you were still trying to gain stability was the mistake.

John Jaeckel: The Pressure Is All On . . . Bettman
- John Jaeckel

I agree that there may be pressure on Bettman, but only because of corporate sponsors. There are reports that this lockout caught NHL sponsors off-guard in a major way. I don't think it is a coincidence that the unannounced/"secret" meeting between Bettman/Daly and the Fehrs took place only a couple of days after NHL COO John Collins held a summit with the league's major sponsors.

If the NHL is in danger of (or as I suspect, already is) being viewed as an unreliable investment for corporate Canada/America, all the owner solidarity in the world won't matter. My guess is that Bettman and Daly now have clear marching orders to find a way to get a deal done by American Thanksgiving, for fear of alienating the major sponsors that leverage the Winter Classic (and, to a lesser extent, the beginning of the NHL on NBC broadcast schedule).

If so, the fly in the ointment is still this - how do Bettman and Daly find a way to come to an agreement that doesn't appear like a "loss," even if it is. If Fehr is willing to "help" the NHL spin a new CBA as a "win" for both sides, I think it could get done quickly. If Fehr wants make them sweat (and he likely does), it could be a bit more bumpy road.

Or I could be completely wrong.

Good point, I kinda realized after posting that was an overestimation. Thx.

I still think more pressure is on Bettman.
- John Jaeckel

Dont agree there is as much pressure as you think on Bettman. He is just the messenger, if owners want to him to make a deal, they can move from their demands on a dime and settle this thing. I would say at most 40% of players will be able to play hockey this year & get not just a partial amount of the salary they were getting in the NHL but only a fraction. How long do you think the novelty of playing in front of family & friends for a fraction of their salary will wear off? Especially when riches await them in NA once this is settled. Someone should give these players economic lessons because the silly things these players are saying in your quotes is laughable.

Dont agree there is as much pressure as you think on Bettman. He is just the messenger, if owners want to him to make a deal, they can move from their demands on a dime and settle this thing. I would say at most 40% of players will be able to play hockey this year & get not just a partial amount of the salary they were getting in the NHL but only a fraction. How long do you think the novelty of playing in front of family & friends for a fraction of their salary will wear off? Especially when riches await them in NA once this is settled. Someone should give these players economic lessons because the silly things these players are saying in your quotes is laughable.
- Kevin R

Combine that 40% with the over 50 players that get paid signing bonus this year and you are left with about 40 % of the lower value players that don't have much of a voice in the NHLPA. The ones that get screwed are the Schlubbs . The stars and top rookies are all ok .

JJ...you said "Without any revenue from an actual season, the owners suffer more than the players do. Most players have found “gigs” that at least partially replace their NHL salaries. Owners, and those who work in their hockey operations, don’t really have the same “luxury.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the players are locked out, then the owners aren't paying their salaries, correct? For most teams, at least the ones that are losing money, I'd think the opposite would be true for the owners, and they'd be saving quite a bit of coin without the salary expense for the players?

As you said, the owners made their fortunes (for the most part) with other business ventures, which are likely still the main bulk of their personal revenue today?

If the season is lost, Gary will have cost those owners that make money over $250M in lost profits. That's not counting their losses from having to run operations with no revenue streams. These losses will have come because Gary is being tough over the 2 or3% of revenues. Who are they going to hold to account for this? Don Fehr?

Dont agree there is as much pressure as you think on Bettman. He is just the messenger, if owners want to him to make a deal, they can move from their demands on a dime and settle this thing. I would say at most 40% of players will be able to play hockey this year & get not just a partial amount of the salary they were getting in the NHL but only a fraction. How long do you think the novelty of playing in front of family & friends for a fraction of their salary will wear off? Especially when riches await them in NA once this is settled. Someone should give these players economic lessons because the silly things these players are saying in your quotes is laughable.
- Kevin R

Bettman is far more than just the messenger. He has curried favor with the most powerful owners, yes, but he has also shaped the strategy and re-shaped the power structure of the Board in a way that ensures his vision is pushed through at all costs. Read Jeff Z. Klein's recent New York Times piece on the subject - http://www.nytimes.com/20...isputed-nhl-enforcer.html .

All with you JJ...but ole Gary got an extension did he not...he is not going anywhere.

"budgeted for a 12/1 start date"

what a complete farce this whole thing has been..management toolism to the nth degree. they wanted it, they manipulated this and the players are pssed and may just say to he!! with'em.

Starting the season on Dec 1st is a COMPLETE failure. Failure of the league and the players. The greed of the NHL is absurd. Bettman does not, IN ANY WAY, deserve to be commissioner of the league anymore. If the NHL cancels any more games than have already been canceled, then I will not be attending a game this year.

Starting the season on Dec 1st is a COMPLETE failure. Failure of the league and the players. The greed of the NHL is absurd. Bettman does not, IN ANY WAY, deserve to be commissioner of the league anymore. If the NHL cancels any more games than have already been canceled, then I will not be attending a game this year.
- bphil00

I think any fan that comes back Dec 1 is hurting the game rather than helping it. It is time for the fans to send a message to the COUNT , "Screw you and your lockouts"

I agree that there may be pressure on Bettman, but only because of corporate sponsors. There are reports that this lockout caught NHL sponsors off-guard in a major way. I don't think it is a coincidence that the unannounced/"secret" meeting between Bettman/Daly and the Fehrs took place only a couple of days after NHL COO John Collins held a summit with the league's major sponsors.

If the NHL is in danger of (or as I suspect, already is) being viewed as an unreliable investment for corporate Canada/America, all the owner solidarity in the world won't matter. My guess is that Bettman and Daly now have clear marching orders to find a way to get a deal done by American Thanksgiving, for fear of alienating the major sponsors that leverage the Winter Classic (and, to a lesser extent, the beginning of the NHL on NBC broadcast schedule).

If so, the fly in the ointment is still this - how do Bettman and Daly find a way to come to an agreement that doesn't appear like a "loss," even if it is. If Fehr is willing to "help" the NHL spin a new CBA as a "win" for both sides, I think it could get done quickly. If Fehr wants make them sweat (and he likely does), it could be a bit more bumpy road.

Or I could be completely wrong.
- BreakoutHockey

Closer to completely right, I suspect. Again, the optics are not favorable to the league/Bettman.

JJ...you said "Without any revenue from an actual season, the owners suffer more than the players do. Most players have found “gigs” that at least partially replace their NHL salaries. Owners, and those who work in their hockey operations, don’t really have the same “luxury.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the players are locked out, then the owners aren't paying their salaries, correct? For most teams, at least the ones that are losing money, I'd think the opposite would be true for the owners, and they'd be saving quite a bit of coin without the salary expense for the players?

As you said, the owners made their fortunes (for the most part) with other business ventures, which are likely still the main bulk of their personal revenue today?
- nelli312

True, but how many employees do the Hawks (for example) have that don't play hockey? I believe the number well exceeds 100.