5 biggest strategic issues NHL faces in next 5 years?

[Ted Hoffman]

When, not if, a forensic audit cannot be made to fit the reported figures there will be a walk out. The player's union isn't very formidible, but they won't ignore issues with reported income.

The NHLPA already has access to this information. It's called an HRR report, and it's prepared by each team and reviewed by an independent accountant [firm] selected jointly by the NHL and NHLPA; both sides get the final report and all supporting documentation. Further, if the NHLPA thinks a team is hiding revenue it can ask for an audit of that team's HRR report.

ooh, i forgot about this, but maybe the payroll range needs to be increased.

2005-06: Floor = 21.5M, Ceiling = 39M. Floor is 55% of ceiling.
2010-11: Floor = 43.4M , Ceiling = 59.4M. Floor is 73% of ceiling.

Realize that in your example, even if you make the spread $24 million as they both go up by the same amount, the floor/ceiling ratio is going to increase. I think what you're trying to argue is that this ratio should stay static - and if so, the NHLPA isn't going to go for it. [The owners might not either, but it's obvious why the players won't - it deprives them of money they could be getting paid.] Also, getting a full share in revenue sharing depends on a team's revenues and not how much it spends in cap dollars.

 

[LadyStanley]

-- Sochi: it'll happen, it's a question of what the two sides give up in the process. I can see the owners requiring the players take out insurance to cover injuries / amending SPC's to not cover injuries in international games in exchange for a variable Players Share that holds the owners accountable for some of their spending.

It's the IIHF, IOC, Sochi Olympic Committee, plus the Hockey Canada, USA Hockey, etc., that are involved in this decision. Much more than just the NHL, NHLPA.

NHL players did not attend the German training camp the summer before Vancouver as there was not insurance to cover them.

The NHL may demand insurance, but the ones who have to pay are the country Olympic Committees and/or the country hockey federations (e.g., Hockey Canada, USA Hockey), and/or the individual players. This is not something covered under the NHL's and teams' insurance policies for the players.

And neither the NHL nor the NHLPA have similar access to the players nor highlights to accent their players' antics in the games. There's a lot more to what the NHL wants that the NHLPA cannot give them WRT Olympics. That will have to come from the IOC, et al.

 

[danishh]

i think the biggest issue with sochi is that the NHL feels they are providing the product and the IOC is getting all the revenues. The NHL wants to share in some of those revenues.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's the IIHF, IOC, Sochi Olympic Committee, plus the Hockey Canada, USA Hockey, etc., that are involved in this decision. Much more than just the NHL, NHLPA.

NHL players did not attend the German training camp the summer before Vancouver as there was not insurance to cover them.

The NHL may demand insurance, but the ones who have to pay are the country Olympic Committees and/or the country hockey federations (e.g., Hockey Canada, USA Hockey), and/or the individual players. This is not something covered under the NHL's and teams' insurance policies for the players.

And neither the NHL nor the NHLPA have similar access to the players nor highlights to accent their players' antics in the games. There's a lot more to what the NHL wants that the NHLPA cannot give them WRT Olympics. That will have to come from the IOC, et al.

The last paragraph is a low concern; if the NHL needs footage from the Olympics to market the league, it's got bigger problems than anyone realizes. The bigger issues are (A) the stoppage of the season for the Olympic tournament, and (B) players getting hurt at the Olympics and being available for their NHL team. A, the league will put up with; B came up in '06 when several players got hurt and missed notable NHL time, and it came up again before '10 when owners and GMs expressed concerns. As it stands, the owners have to pay the players if they get hurt at the Olympics and they don't want to have to do that; who would pay for insurance is a side note - it's the fact that someone would have to do it, and it won't be the NHL or the individual teams. The key point of discussion there is whether the NHL would require the players to get insurance - and I think it's going to be something that's debated strongly.

Re: the 1st paragraph - let's be honest. If the NHL and NHLPA say they're in for Sochi, the chances any of the other parties say "well, that's nice - but we're going to use strictly amateur players" are roughly the same as the two of us getting hit by the same exact bolt of lightning. It's theoretically possible, but in reality it's not going to happen.

 

[TheKiller93]

I think Sochi won't happen...to see why, you don't have to look further than Turin vs. Vancouver

Vancouver was a league wet-dream. U.S. vs. Canada finals, games right in primetime here in N/A. Beauty. But Torino was a nightmare. games at 4 in the morning, significant injuries to some key players before the playoff stretch drive, and a Sweden vs. ??? CR?? final with both North American teams sucking. To take off 2 weeks right in the middle of the season (upsets momentum of interest), risk injuries to your star players, for some games at 4 in the morning....I can totally see the apprehension. Add to that the IOC issues, I definitely think the NHL will prefer to abstain from Sochi.

Of course, the big unknown is how the NHLPA and some notable star players (OV et al) will react and if the NHL will cave to their demands.

 

[Jumptheshark]

1)New ownership problems with teams(if you read the financial times or Forbes in about two years there will be changes in a few of the businesses/families that own teams and speculation is that the new CEO's coming in may nuke the NHL team-ie sell them
2) CBA--Fehr hates the cap and may want the NHL to go the route of MLB
3) Being forced to bail out more teams
4) The Quebec and Winepeg debate
5) not have a real TV contract in the states

 

[HamiltonFan]

1) Elimination of the rampant nepotism and conflict of interest that infiltrates the upper echelons of the league like a bad cancer, especially at the BOG level. I mean, Tim Leiweke, president of AEG, is the chairman of the NHL expansion and relocation committee? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????!!!!

2) Stop trying to force feed the league onto an apathetic, unwilling, and uninterested southern US (plus Columbus) populace. In such markets, the NHL usually ranks around 7th in popularity, behind high school football. Miami draws 6000 local TV viewers per game. When your product regularly draws less TV viewers than infomercials do, then perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your overall business model and goals. It's acceptable to have 1 or 2 'experimental' markets, but 30% of the league is quite excessive.

3) For the love of everything that is good on this earth, please put a bullet into the head of this ridiculous Phoenix Coyoties [sic] gong show. Enough is enough.

4) Desperate need for a new commissioner.

5) Desperate need for a new deputy commissioner.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

My comment was more in relation to growing the game, not the fiscal aspect of it. It wouldn't surprise me if the NHL loses money, either, but there appears to be more and more of an upswing to NHL viewership in the States after the Olympic ice hockey tournament is complete.

I know of quite a few people that thought the gold medal game in Vancouver was one of the best showcases ever.

there is no evidence to suggest that the olympics help tv ratings. They will already be maxed out in Canada and TV Ratings in the US will be dependent on which markets are successful. Last year teams like Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston and Washington were all having strong seasons, culminating in a dream final of Philly/Chicago. It should be no surprise that after the olympics ratings went up.

In 2006 ratings were poor because the top teams in the league were Carolina, Ottawa, Buffalo and Calgary. This of course culminated with a nightmare final of Carolina/Edmonton. To credit the olympics with increased viewership is plain ridiculous.

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

I'm guessing start of the season is a better chance for discussions to statt on next CBA based on Fehr's comments of trying to get up to speed as the new ED.

NHL has one of the largest online presences of the major sports. But there's always room for improvement.
Can you clarify why you think MLBAM is "king"?

BAM is always at the forefront of technological innovations with regards to broadcasting sports online/apps/etc.

Other companies follow BAM, not the other way around. There's a distinct advantage being the trend setter. BAM is the model company for a reason these days.

 

[JMROWE]

1. Cut the dead weight in Phoenix , Atlanta , Florida & Columbus & move them to stronger markets

2. Get that TV. contract in the USA. back that they lost during the lockout

3 . Make it 9 by putting teams in Winnipeg , Hamilton & Quebec City

4. Marketing

5. We need a new Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner

 

[Grudy0]

there is no evidence to suggest that the olympics help tv ratings. They will already be maxed out in Canada and TV Ratings in the US will be dependent on which markets are successful. Last year teams like Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston and Washington were all having strong seasons, culminating in a dream final of Philly/Chicago. It should be no surprise that after the olympics ratings went up.

In 2006 ratings were poor because the top teams in the league were Carolina, Ottawa, Buffalo and Calgary. This of course culminated with a nightmare final of Carolina/Edmonton. To credit the olympics with increased viewership is plain ridiculous.

And let's say I somewhat agree with this...

I know that NBC is basically flat year-over-year with respect to ratings, but I can swear that Versus is a bit better year-over-year. I'm going to have to lookup the numbers to verify.

What I do believe is that now professionalism runs rampant in the Olympics is that it would be ironic that the NHL won't allow its players into the Olympics after doing so for the past decade and a half.

 

[knorthern knight]

Some points in no particular order...

• cut down cheap shots in particular and hitting in general, and don't worry about the whining from Don Cherry. It's not just about heavy hits (Pacioretti) or concussions like Crosby or Lindros (imagine what his career COULD have been like). It's also about "sub-concussive" hits. Sort of like smoking. One cigarrette isn't going to kill you. A couple of packs a day will eventually do it. Same thing with knocks to the head. One mild hit may mean nothing. A couple of dozen hard hits every game during a career will eventually cause brain damage. And it doesn't have to be a concussion, either. Damage from a bunch of "sub-concussive" hits will accumulate over time. The technical term is CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) See http://www.suite101.com/content/hockey-head-injuries-report-says-bob-probert-had-cte-a355309 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy This applies to all "collision sports" ("contact sports" is grossly understating the case for football and hockey).
  
  Note that over the years, athletes have become heavier and faster. NFL and CFL players used to be small wirey guys. Now they're 275 or 300 pound giants who bulk up on "nutritional supplements". And they run just as fast, if not faster than their predecessors. Needless to say the collisions have much more impact energy. Getting back to hockey, I'm old enough to remember 1967. It wasn't just the Leafs last Stanley Cup but the Esposito/Hodge/Stanfield trade to Boston. The Bruins formed a line consisting of Esposito, Cashman, and Hodge. They were big for their time (all 200+ pounds) and dominated in the slot. The response from other teams was to sign big heavy fast guys too. Again, hits became more potent because athletes were heavier.
  
  I feel that CTE will explode into the public consciousness just like smoking/lung-cancer. If this issue isn't addressed, hockey risks becoming marginalised, even in Canada.
• Have relocation sites ready, to minimize/avoid contraction. The NHL chose to expand into the US, and the US got hit hard by the economic crash. Arizona was particularly hard hit. The rest of the sunbelt experienced economic problems too. Winnipeg and Quebec come to mind as prospective locations. But the NHL should be scouting Houston, and beating the bushes for prospective viable owners in Kansas City. The prospective owners should be vetted NOW. This way, they hopefully won't end up having to beg for a loan from the city. In short, have your plan B ready, rather than running around in panic at the last minute.
• If the US economic recovery, especially in the sunbelt, is slow, contraction may be necessary. Have contingency plans and schedules drawn up. E.g. a 28 or 29 team league with 4 divisions of approximately 7 teams each.
• At the opposite end of the spectrum, lay the groundwork for expansion. I know this sounds like a contradiction to the previous point, but the economy goes in cycles. Once it starts recovering, be ready to try new sites, maybe even a 2nd go-round for Pheonix/Kansas City/Cleveland/Oakland. But make sure you have viable owners+arenas. Either do it right, or don't do it at all.
• Yes, allow players to go to the Olympics.

 

[knorthern knight]

I disagree with the calls for a new commissioner. Bettman is hired by the owners, and is paid to be "the most hated man in Canada". He takes his orders from the 30 (currently 29) owners. His job is to be the "front man". Think of the RIAA that catches all the flack for lawsuits and lobbying for draconian anti-consumer legislation, while the individual record labels keep a lower profile. Changing the puppet doesn't help if the same puppeteer remains.

 

[Hal 9000*]

Bettman needs to stop devaluing the game.

What is going on in Phoenix and Atlanta (and others too) is disgraceful. Seeing 6-7 thousand fans at a game is shameful. Letting people pay $25 bucks for a ticket, a beer and a hotdog is not even laughable anymore. This league will get nowhere begging for fans. I can't even begin to express my disgust at overpricing a team, then encouraging/allowing a community to pay a person to take over that team.

 

[danishh]

I disagree with the calls for a new commissioner. Bettman is hired by the owners, and is paid to be "the most hated man in Canada". He takes his orders from the 30 (currently 29) owners. His job is to be the "front man". Think of the RIAA that catches all the flack for lawsuits and lobbying for draconian anti-consumer legislation, while the individual record labels keep a lower profile. Changing the puppet doesn't help if the same puppeteer remains.

this. People who harp on bettman are ignorant of the way any business works. They are even more ignorant of how the sports business works and even further ignorant of how the NHL works.

Bettman is paid to be the frontman, and while he is paid to put plans into action, they arnt just his plans. If you're against 'sunbelt expansion', fine, but know that while you direct your blame at bettman, snider, dolan, jacobs, wirtz (deceased), et al. go free under the radar. Bettman doesnt make the decisions, he carries them out.

And guess what? Those expansions/relocations, however 'anti-hockey' or 'anti-canadian' they may be, make sense from a business standpoint. In theory, large population centers in the USA should be able to support an NHL team. Corporate sponsership in these cities should be generating the required revenues. Converting the required fraction of the population into hockey fans, or at the very least paying hockey attendees, should be doable. And, if on-ice success occurs, a solid TV audience should be built in these regions.

The bettman haters should ask themselves, are they fans of hockey or are they fans of canadian/northeastern/traditionalist hockey. At the time, relocating atlanta, winnipeg, quebec, hartford, and minnesota made sense from a business standpoint. Arena's weren't being built in these markets and owners willing to build them or sustain annual losses were not there. If you want more canadian hockey, bettman will likely never please you. If you're a hockey fan who wants the growth of this sport in north america and the world, Bettman is doing a solid job. Sure, there are concerns in some markets, but these are important future markets if we want this game to grow. Maybe we take these teams and move them back to canada, but then what? Does hockey benefit from those moves? Maybe the current team owners make more money, maybe their franchises gain value, but in the long run, what is best for hockey?

 

[Dado]

The single biggest challenge that dwarfs them all is, IMO, contracting the team by six teams.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The single biggest challenge that dwarfs them all is, IMO, contracting the team by six teams.

The league isn't going to contract teams. If contraction was as good an idea as some people think, MLB would have whacked a couple teams when it had the chance.

 

[Dado]

The league isn't going to contract teams.

Yes, it will.

There, now that's settled.

 

[Grudy0]

The single biggest challenge that dwarfs them all is, IMO, contracting the team by six teams.

I thought the title of this thread was "5 biggest strategic issues NHL faces in next 5 years? " I'd love an explanation as to how contraction is a strategic issue that the NHL needs to deal with.

 

[Dado]

Because IMO it will happen regardless - so "strategy" enters into it because the process can either be forced by external events and be a chaotic process, or it can handled in a timely manner internally, with some measure of control.

 

[Grudy0]

Because IMO it will happen regardless - so "strategy" enters into it because the process can either be forced by external events and be a chaotic process, or it can handled in a timely manner internally, with some measure of control.

Contraction implies the plan and execution to remove franchises. The "it will happen regardless" implies something other than contraction; the implication is folding franchises due to bankruptcy. The Phoenix situation is as close as we've seen to "contraction", and even with the bankruptcy, there has been one suitor turned down to buy the team and move it, and another that may yet still buy the team and move it, with the league attempting to find a buyer to keep the franchise in Phoenix.

I just don't see contraction, yet.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Yes, it will.

There, now that's settled.

Oh, wait - because you say the league will contract teams, it's going to happen?



Well, I'm convinced.

 

[knorthern knight]

Contraction implies the plan and execution to remove franchises. The "it will happen regardless" implies something other than contraction; the implication is folding franchises due to bankruptcy.

It's still contraction, with the only difference being whether it's voluntary or involuntary. I feel that, for PR+PR (Public Relations and Player Relations) reasons, the NHL will do almost anything to avoid contraction. Heck, they'd sooner move a couple of franchises to Canada The only way you're going to see contraction is if the economic recovery falters, and the number of failing markets exceeds the number of waiting franchises. Right now, Winnipeg and and Quebec are waiting. Winnipeg could accomadate a team next season, and possibly Quebec City as well (using the Colisee as temporary accomadations). What's the potential ownership situation like in Houston and Kansas City?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hoping things get that bad, but the NHL should have contingency plans in place.

 

[Confucius]

Biggest strategy point they have to come up with. How can we keep the fans in Canada in the dark about our true plan....

 

[Dado]

I just don't see contraction, yet.

Differences make a market. I understand, and respect, the contrary argument.