Bettman comments 1/8

[AllByDesign]

The question is, will the NHL ever "get" that sweet TV deal?

My estimation is that they are in line to see a hard revenue deal this time around. I wouldn't say a 'Sweet' deal is in line, but at least some guaranteed money. The NHL and NBC have worked out a fair arrangement for the past 6 seasons (I think 6) in which the NHL has seen decent revenues, as NBC had as well. The NHL has a few more marketable personalities, recent Olympic exposure, and an upswing in ratings to hang their hat upon. My unqualified guess sees a short term national TV deal with hard cash involved. Take that for what its worth... zero..

 

[tarheelhockey]

So, it's really rather sad (in a non business way) that they will "use" the finances of the Canadian franchises to push for a non Canadian aspirations....

I don't disagree with this necessarily, but I think you're drawing a false dichotomy here with the concept of "Canadian aspirations". Every league "uses" its richer franchises in the way that you're using the word, but only in hockey is there a vein of patriotism injected into that dynamic.

IMO, if you're trying to see the big picture more clearly it would be best to think outside the box of Canadian vs. non-Canadian, because that isn't how the BoG really operates.

 

[saskganesh]

The NHL has been trying for 40 years to land the "big" US TV contract. And even if they get a decent contract, to say it will ever be on par with Football or Baseball is not living in reality.

Maybe ESPN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. know something that Bettman refuses to accept.... the vast majority on Americans just don't give a crap about hockey and never will.

I agree with you, but something to consider:

broadcasted Network-based Television is dying, but live sports programming remains a relative bastion of high ratings. so I think that the NHL, though it is a minor "regional" sport in the USA, has begun to become much more attractive to television executives.

Hockey's relative popularity has really has not changed that much since the 70's, but the nature of television has. So while the NHL will never attract NFL, MLB, NBA dollars, they do have a chance to negotiate for a better payday.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

These arguments are going to be fun when it comes to renegotiating the CBA.

If i am the players i would argue that you are making a choice to keep revenues down by having teams like Phoenix in the league instead of relocating them to another city where the revenues will be higher thus making the cap go up and our salaries increase. No longer will they be able to go "we're losing money so you need to make concessions" where the NHL is losing money and revenues on purpose by not allowing relocation.

Bettman may have gotten what he wanted in court but it will probably cost all the owners a lot more in the long run.

And sure relocation sucks for fans of the current teams but it makes fans in the new city very happy and passionate. There are even Phoenix fans that are very passionate about keeping the team even though the team was relocated.

 

[kdb209]

Prior to Bettman the NHL had never had a national US TV contract.

Says Hi.

That said - GB's Fox deal was the first real network deal since the 70's.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Since the NHL is a non-profit entity it qualifies for a different set of business rules. The NHL as a league follows the directional choice of the Board of Govenors. If they collectively decide that they want market presence over immediate revenues that is their choice. It is very evident that it is likely the case.

I'm pretty tired of hearing that the NHL is a 'non-profit entity'. All 30 Owners that run this 'non-profit entity' are out to get profits. Their "franchises" are seeking profits...yes the body that oversees their franchises (the NHL) isn't out for profits...the entire point of this league IS to make profits. Not for the league...but for their owners....who control the league.
Business A is a non-profit entity. It is controlled by Business B. Business B seeks profits. Business A's only function is to oversee Business B.

Can you really, with a straight face, make the claim that Business A is not interested in profits? Sure they aren't profits for Business A specifically...they are profits for Business B....but Business B controls Business A.

I have a friend who is an executive with McDonald's Corp. He always emphasizes that presence is the highest consideration in his business. There are locations that lose money and don't do well on the balance sheet. Closing the store down would make business sense in one aspect. In another they feel it would be harmful in such a way that they lose their market presence in an area with other competition. I agree that absorbing losses is not the intent of any business model, but we are talking about a major sports league. For them to be considered a major player, they need to have market presence in the largest urban areas. Revenues are going up and up with the NHL. Yes, there are some markets struggling, but the overall league is flourishing.

So wouldn't the overall league be flourishing even more without those struggling markets?
Comparing market share/presence of a fast food chain to this private club is a tad ridiculous. The NHL's competition is other major sports. Is McDonald's competition Wal-Mart? That would have to be true for this analogy to hold up.
The NHL doesn't stay in markets because other hockey leagues are in the region and they don't want to lose ground to them.
Very few choose 'Do I go to a MLB game or an NHL game?' like they choose 'Do I go to McDonald's or Burger King?'. It's just not the same...not at all.

The league also doesn't believe that having half the league in Canada will benefit the league either. The league can't be everywhere. As a group they decide what they believe is best. The owners want franchises in the states. More Canadian teams will not benefit the current Canadian teams. It may create a few more owners that are in the black, but how does that help the largest money making teams? Those teams are after the golden goose. They may not be any further ahead on that goal than they were 8 years ago, but moving teams from large American markets and into mid-sized Canadian cities isn't going to help either.

The way to get that Golden Goose isn't to have markets drawing 8,500 fans to games either....or have teams that are in bankruptcy and/or bought by the league because nobody else wants them.

The way to increase franchise values and get a big TV deal (every NHL owner wants both) is to have demand for your franchises and soldout buildings.

Having some rich guy lose $30M a year in a market doesn't help you get TV deals....it doesn't help you increase franchise values. It helps you look bush league. Being in Atlanta for the sole-purpose of being in Atlanta isn't a benefit. The TV ratings for hockey there are brutal...attendance is brutal....the team loses piles of cash.
That big US market actually gives a real strong message of why people shouldn't own NHL teams and that a big TV deal isn't warranted. Why pay big bucks to broadcast NHL games into markets like Atlanta that won't even watch when the Thrashers are part of that broadcast?

To sell the league to future owners (increase demand) and to the networks...it has to look good. Look to be in 'high demand'. HUGE markets drawing 9,000 a game and the franchise losing piles of money doesn't sell the league to anybody....it damages it.

Sure the league as a whole is "fine" or "prosperous"....if you take out the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, etc. it wouldn't be long before the league looks like it is in a tail spin. If you wanted to buy the Thrashers...or buy broadcast rights from the NHL....are you going to just look at the teams that are wildly profitable?

"I'll lose truckloads of money in Atlanta."
"Yeah...but overall the league is quite prosperous."
"True."
"Wanna buy the franchsie then?"
"SURE DO!"

I find it odd that within the same post you can say how the league is a non-profit entity....but then later say that the league is flourishing. When do we acknowledge the difference between league and the 30 "franchises"?

This league is barely stable...and that is only because there are teams that are incredibly stable. Take away about 4 or 5 teams and this league is in shambles.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I'm pretty tired of hearing that the NHL is a 'non-profit entity'. All 30 Owners that run this 'non-profit entity' are out to get profits. Their "franchises" are seeking profits...yes the body that oversees their franchises (the NHL) isn't out for profits...the entire point of this league IS to make profits. Not for the league...but for their owners....who control the league.
Business A is a non-profit entity. It is controlled by Business B. Business B seeks profits. Business A's only function is to oversee Business B.

Can you really, with a straight face, make the claim that Business A is not interested in profits? Sure they aren't profits for Business A specifically...they are profits for Business B....but Business B controls Business A.

So wouldn't the overall league be flourishing even more without those struggling markets?
Comparing market share/presence of a fast food chain to this private club is a tad ridiculous. The NHL's competition is other major sports. Is McDonald's competition Wal-Mart? That would have to be true for this analogy to hold up.
The NHL doesn't stay in markets because other hockey leagues are in the region and they don't want to lose ground to them.
Very few choose 'Do I go to a MLB game or an NHL game?' like they choose 'Do I go to McDonald's or Burger King?'. It's just not the same...not at all.

The way to get that Golden Goose isn't to have markets drawing 8,500 fans to games either....or have teams that are in bankruptcy and/or bought by the league because nobody else wants them.

The way to increase franchise values and get a big TV deal (every NHL owner wants both) is to have demand for your franchises and soldout buildings.

Having some rich guy lose $30M a year in a market doesn't help you get TV deals....it doesn't help you increase franchise values. It helps you look bush league. Being in Atlanta for the sole-purpose of being in Atlanta isn't a benefit. The TV ratings for hockey there are brutal...attendance is brutal....the team loses piles of cash.
That big US market actually gives a real strong message of why people shouldn't own NHL teams and that a big TV deal isn't warranted. Why pay big bucks to broadcast NHL games into markets like Atlanta that won't even watch when the Thrashers are part of that broadcast?

To sell the league to future owners (increase demand) and to the networks...it has to look good. Look to be in 'high demand'. HUGE markets drawing 9,000 a game and the franchise losing piles of money doesn't sell the league to anybody....it damages it.

Sure the league as a whole is "fine" or "prosperous"....if you take out the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, etc. it wouldn't be long before the league looks like it is in a tail spin. If you wanted to buy the Thrashers...or buy broadcast rights from the NHL....are you going to just look at the teams that are wildly profitable?

"I'll lose truckloads of money in Atlanta."
"Yeah...but overall the league is quite prosperous."
"True."
"Wanna buy the franchsie then?"
"SURE DO!"

I find it odd that within the same post you can say how the league is a non-profit entity....but then later say that the league is flourishing. When do we acknowledge the difference between league and the 30 "franchises"?

This league is barely stable...and that is only because there are teams that are incredibly stable. Take away about 4 or 5 teams and this league is in shambles.

I think you misunderstand about not-for-profits, especially the NHL. Basically, the NHL is a not for profit but any profits made by the NHL are distributed to the member organizations thus making the NHL non-profit.

 

[AllByDesign]

Can you really, with a straight face, make the claim that Business A is not interested in profits? Sure they aren't profits for Business A specifically...they are profits for Business B....but Business B controls Business A..

I never said they weren't interested in profits. Please go back and re-read the OP. The BOG are the ones that steer the ship. That ship feels that higher profits reside in having big market presence. I can't give an educated answer on who is right and who is wrong. Given that the opinion of a group of very succesful people feel that priority is correct, I will side with them. Feel no offense that I don't see it through the eyes of another HF Boards poster.

So wouldn't the overall league be flourishing even more without those struggling markets?

Would the CFL be flourishing without the Argo's?

Comparing market share/presence of a fast food chain to this private club is a tad ridiculous. The NHL's competition is other major sports.

I was giving a hard example of when an arm of an overall business is performing poorly, it isn't always wise to sever said arm. I thought it would be easy to follow along.

The way to get that Golden Goose isn't to have markets drawing 8,500 fans to games either....or have teams that are in bankruptcy and/or bought by the league because nobody else wants them.
The way to increase franchise values and get a big TV deal (every NHL owner wants both) is to have demand for your franchises and soldout buildings.

Eliminating your presence in the most populous regions of the US is more detrimental. Do you think that the powers to be within the NHL don't ask the Networks what they would prefer to make the product more attractive? They have made changes to the game to add more excitement, and have expanded into the largest markets. Some of the non traditional mrkets have responded well, while others have not. I refuse to argue the legitimacy of why some flourish and why some have struggled. No one has put forth a solid case study on this.

Having some rich guy lose $30M a year in a market doesn't help you get TV deals....it doesn't help you increase franchise values. It helps you look bush league. Being in Atlanta for the sole-purpose of being in Atlanta isn't a benefit. The TV ratings for hockey there are brutal...attendance is brutal....the team loses piles of cash.

Here's the beautiful thing. The value of one franchise has nothing to do with the value of another. The only loss factor I have seen on the Thrashers is a loss of 8 Million dollars last year. I don't know who you are referring to with $30 Million in losses. If current ownership is looking to sell (which officially they aren't) and no one wants to buy, then the NHL will have no choice but to move the franchise to where ever the BOG's see most fit. I believe it is premature to be writing the Thrashers off.

That big US market actually gives a real strong message of why people shouldn't own NHL teams and that a big TV deal isn't warranted. Why pay big bucks to broadcast NHL games into markets like Atlanta that won't even watch when the Thrashers are part of that broadcast?

NBC and Versus would disagree with you. Both broadcasters have had great success under the terms of their deals. It has been reported that ESPN is looking forward to adding the NHL back into its national compliment and re-establish a deal. We'll have to see what happens when the dust settles, but the initial data states otherwise to your assertion.

To sell the league to future owners (increase demand) and to the networks...it has to look good. Look to be in 'high demand'. HUGE markets drawing 9,000 a game and the franchise losing piles of money doesn't sell the league to anybody....it damages it.

The Pred's looked down and out... new owners bought in.. things are well. Same with the Sabre's and the Sens. Sometimes a fresh market plan can make a world of difference.