IOC won't be compensating NHL for using players, but...

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,019
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
If the NHL owners really wanted to play hardball, they could host a World Cup every four years during the two weeks of the winter Olympics. Shut the NHL down at the same time... they'd control all telecasts and rights, keep the profits and screw the IOC out of some of their broadcast audience.

If the NHL would shutdown, the NHLPA wouldn't fly with that idea. It's already known they want to play in the Olympics. Everybody knows the World Cup is all about bringing money fro the NHL and the NHLPA. Olympics is about representing your country.
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,019
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
It's becoming rathersad/hilarious how some posters are acting like the IOC is screwing their precious NHL out of money with these "do this and that and see how they like that!" posts and attitude. :shakehead Grow up people...
 

wjhl2009fan

Registered User
Nov 13, 2008
9,042
0
It's becoming rathersad/hilarious how some posters are acting like the IOC is screwing their precious NHL out of money with these "do this and that and see how they like that!" posts and attitude. :shakehead Grow up people...

Its not that its hockey is the only team sport that has to take time off for the games.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
If the NHL would shutdown, the NHLPA wouldn't fly with that idea. It's already known they want to play in the Olympics. Everybody knows the World Cup is all about bringing money fro the NHL and the NHLPA. Olympics is about representing your country.

Jussi, you dont know nor can anyone predict with any certainty that should the PA be presented with an alternative to the Olympics that enriches every one of their union members & not just the few that are lucky enough to play for flag & family that they wouldnt drop their "Olympian Idealism". Its an antiquated & lugubrious event best reserved for semi-pro's & retired pro's with at least a liter of gas left in their tanks, top tier college & Jr. players etc etc etc.

It's becoming rathersad/hilarious how some posters are acting like the IOC is screwing their precious NHL out of money with these "do this and that and see how they like that!" posts and attitude. :shakehead Grow up people...

Now now Jussi, ya'll dont want me Droppin a Dime on the Poe-leece do ya?..... Oh oh, just a moment, got a gander at your avatar, take it back....The NHL (& the NHLPA which is still in its terrible teens but growing up thank God) outgrew the Olympics & the Olympic Movement in 1927, a year after it was formed, long before the Winter Games were so much as a glint in the well lubricated eyeballs of one Baron Pierre de Coubertin 109 year ago. It has no business shutting down, supplying its best & brightest, gratis'.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
How long has the KHL been in existence?

The name of the league really doesn't matter. It already had its Olympic break when it was still called "Superleague" or "International League" or whatever.

How much money does the Russian broadcaster pay to carry the games in Russia?

I don't know, but it's surely not for free. What's the point in this argument?

And when I said "major" I did mean major. Sorry, but when the majority of players are coming from the NHL for any country that's going to have any shot at competing for a medal, the others really aren't on the same playing field.

So by your definition the NHL is the only "major" hockey league in the world. Which means that your question ("Does any other major league shut down in order to accommodate the Olympics?") is pointless, as you assume that there actually is no other major league than the NHL.

As for your argument that the other leagues (KHL, Elitserien etc.) aren't on the same playing field as the NHL: it's certainly true that no other hockey league is affected by the Olympics to the same degree - but what about the time before the Olympics became "best on best" tournaments in 1998? Back then the European leagues were involved and affected just as much as the NHL now. But all of them managed to have an Olympic break and none of them complained.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
It's becoming rathersad/hilarious how some posters are acting like the IOC is screwing their precious NHL out of money with these "do this and that and see how they like that!" posts and attitude. :shakehead Grow up people...

You can do better, Jussi. Some of us don't want believe this is some kind of altruistic or selfless pursuit. Heck, look at how much money is spent on these athletes, which arguably could be put to better uses in their respective societies.

All the entities under discussion are in this for the money, and they make a ton of of it. Otherwise, there would be no disputes.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
As for your argument that the other leagues (KHL, Elitserien etc.) aren't on the same playing field as the NHL: it's certainly true that no other hockey league is affected by the Olympics to the same degree - but what about the time before the Olympics became "best on best" tournaments in 1998? Back then the European leagues were involved and affected just as much as the NHL now. But all of them managed to have an Olympic break and none of them complained.

When you're making peanuts, and FURTHERMORE, you see your US broadcast partner (NBC) paying a good portion of the broadcast money, why yes, you might see why the NHL may want a piece of the pie. In the US/Canada, the men's medal games are broadcast in pretty prime spots. Downhill skiing is very popular, but it's usually over by the first days of the Olympics. Figure skating is also a very big draw, and stretched over the course of the event, but what's left after that that's a big marketable item? X-country skiing? Luge? Curling? (Okay, in Canada, yes.)

NBC has to figure out where to slot these events in over the course of the three weeks. Hockey is amenable to being shown in blocks and depending on the countries involved, in prime spots. It won't have the same cache if you can't say you've got the best players from all over the world facing off for national pride.

Now, if we did go back to non-NHL involvement, the effect on the other leagues would be bigger. As it stands now, all the biggest stars for the hockey countries are from the NHL. It is affected by far more than the others combined.
 

Jamin

Registered User
Aug 25, 2009
4,924
778
The name of the league really doesn't matter. It already had its Olympic break when it was still called "Superleague" or "International League" or whatever.



I don't know, but it's surely not for free. What's the point in this argument?



So by your definition the NHL is the only "major" hockey league in the world. Which means that your question ("Does any other major league shut down in order to accommodate the Olympics?") is pointless, as you assume that there actually is no other major league than the NHL.

As for your argument that the other leagues (KHL, Elitserien etc.) aren't on the same playing field as the NHL: it's certainly true that no other hockey league is affected by the Olympics to the same degree - but what about the time before the Olympics became "best on best" tournaments in 1998? Back then the European leagues were involved and affected just as much as the NHL now. But all of them managed to have an Olympic break and none of them complained.

None of them complained because no one in north america cared so we didnt hear about it. To canadians the olympics exist when nhl players start going otherwise its the spengler cup
 

rojac

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 5, 2007
12,945
2,807
Waterloo, ON
The NHL (& the NHLPA which is still in its terrible teens but growing up thank God) outgrew the Olympics & the Olympic Movement in 1927, a year after it was formed, long before the Winter Games were so much as a glint in the well lubricated eyeballs of one Baron Pierre de Coubertin 109 year ago. It has no business shutting down, supplying its best & brightest, gratis'.

While, I get the general gist of what you are saying, it's clouded by what appear to be inaccuracies and non-sequiturs.

The NHL was formed in 1917, so how is 1927 a year after it was formed? The only significance that I can think of for 1927 in a hockey context is I believe that was the year the Stanley Cup became exclusively competed for by NHL teams.

I'm going to assume that your comment about about the NHLPA being in its terrible teens (despite being around for over 40 years) was metaphorical so I won't count that one against you.

Then you go on to say "long before the Winter Games were so much as a glint in the well lubricated eyeballs of one Baron Pierre do Coubertin 109 years ago." Now, the Winter Olympics were first held in 1924 (but "ice hockey" was first an Olympic sport at the 1920 games) and were obviously conceived a few years ago a few years before. Now 1927 is after that date and even if you meant 1918 (which would be the actual year after the NHL was formed), that is hardly "long before" the conception of the Winter Olympics and is probably after the decision to add the sport to the Olympics.

And I'm really not sure what you were going for with the 109 years ago (1902). That date is long before the Winter Olympics were considered and is several years after the first modern Olympics (1896). Although, as it turns out 1902 is apparently the year that hockey was first played in Europe.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
None of them complained because no one in north america cared so we didnt hear about it. To canadians the olympics exist when nhl players start going otherwise its the spengler cup

I'm not Canadian, I'm European and in Europe there's been no complaints for about - 90 years? It's not that there are complaints that Canada doesn't take notice of, there simply aren't any complaints on our side of the Atlantic Ocean.

When you're making peanuts, and FURTHERMORE, you see your US broadcast partner (NBC) paying a good portion of the broadcast money, why yes, you might see why the NHL may want a piece of the pie.

I definitely see why the NHL wants a piece of the pie and I actually agree that they deserve their share, but the IOC is the IOC... from the point of view of a businessman, which obviously is the view of the NHL, the Olympic involvement might be a doubtful pleasure. But this is the parting of the ways: you either calculate the debit and credit or you go for the one international best-on-best tournament that gets hockey more exposure than any NHL or IIHF organised World Cup will be able to generate in the next 50 years.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
^^ ^^^ ^^^^
I'll bite Theo;

What benefit does the KHL & or its players, those that didnt make the cut for their respective countries teams, collectively, derive from participation in the Winter Olympics?. Does the wear & tear on their star players in playing for their respective countries burn them out & thus lessen their club teams chances in their league playoffs & thus the teams bottom line, particularilly in the 'K' which is heavy on incentives & light on guaranteed salaries?.

Of course the other "major leagues" shutdown, in Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, indeed, all of the leagues indirectly controlled by none other than Rene' Fasel, President of IIHF, and of course, head of the IOC's hockiey committee. As the number of games played in the Euro-Leagues are a lot fewer than the NHL's, accommadation is nowhere nearly as onerous. The KHL however, like the NHL, takes a hit. The KHL & NHL providing its best Hunters & Jumpers to the Olympics, free of charge, without access to the players or a freakin VHF tape of highlights, no recompence of anykind, the IOC & host country raking in billions thanks in large part to the star power the pro's bring to the event.

Both Bettman & his counterpart, Medvedev, have met with Fasel on numerous occassions to try & find a comprimise with what to date has been an un-comprising, un-co-operative, arrogant & obtuse organization in the IOC who seem to feel that its they themselves that are doing the KHL & NHL all of the favors in providing a spectacular background & tournament in which to foster the promotion & promulgation of the game. How sincerely, wonderfully magnanimous yes?. This is one group of dilettantes we can count on as clearly they only have our best interests at heart. :sarcasm:
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
As the number of games played in the Euro-Leagues are a lot fewer than the NHL's, accommadation is nowhere nearly as onerous.

True, but a one month break is a one month break. Hinders the flow of the season, brings the danger of injuries etc.

The KHL however, like the NHL, takes a hit. The KHL & NHL providing its best Hunters & Jumpers to the Olympics, free of charge, without access to the players or a freakin VHF tape of highlights, no recompence of anykind, the IOC & host country raking in billions thanks in large part to the star power the pro's bring to the event.

I already said that I agree the NHL deserves its share. I'm not defending the IOC.

How sincerely, wonderfully magnanimous yes?. This is one group of dilettantes we can count on as clearly they only have our best interests at heart. :sarcasm:

I've never said anything like that about the IOC. Ever since Juan Antonio Samaranch's takeover in 1980, their first interest has been money, not unlike the NHL. I don't mind that too much, but if they are too undiscerning and stubborn to keep the NHL aboard, I'm certainly not happy with that and I'm not defending them.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
While, I get the general gist of what you are saying, it's clouded by what appear to be inaccuracies and non-sequiturs.

The NHL was formed in 1917, so how is 1927 a year after it was formed? The only significance that I can think of for 1927 in a hockey context is I believe that was the year the Stanley Cup became exclusively competed for by NHL teams.

I'm going to assume that your comment about about the NHLPA being in its terrible teens (despite being around for over 40 years) was metaphorical so I won't count that one against you.

Then you go on to say "long before the Winter Games were so much as a glint in the well lubricated eyeballs of one Baron Pierre do Coubertin 109 years ago." Now, the Winter Olympics were first held in 1924 (but "ice hockey" was first an Olympic sport at the 1920 games) and were obviously conceived a few years ago a few years before. Now 1927 is after that date and even if you meant 1918 (which would be the actual year after the NHL was formed), that is hardly "long before" the conception of the Winter Olympics and is probably after the decision to add the sport to the Olympics.

And I'm really not sure what you were going for with the 109 years ago (1902). That date is long before the Winter Olympics were considered and is several years after the first modern Olympics (1896). Although, as it turns out 1902 is apparently the year that hockey was first played in Europe.

I think the point being made was when the NHL started participating in the Olympics. There have been 21 Olympics overall, and only the most recent four have had NHL participation.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
While, I get the general gist of what you are saying, it's clouded by what appear to be inaccuracies and non-sequiturs.

The NHL was formed in 1917, so how is 1927 a year after it was formed? The only significance that I can think of for 1927 in a hockey context is I believe that was the year the Stanley Cup became exclusively competed for by NHL teams.

I'm going to assume that your comment about about the NHLPA being in its terrible teens (despite being around for over 40 years) was metaphorical so I won't count that one against you.

Then you go on to say "long before the Winter Games were so much as a glint in the well lubricated eyeballs of one Baron Pierre do Coubertin 109 years ago." Now, the Winter Olympics were first held in 1924 (but "ice hockey" was first an Olympic sport at the 1920 games) and were obviously conceived a few years ago a few years before. Now 1927 is after that date and even if you meant 1918 (which would be the actual year after the NHL was formed), that is hardly "long before" the conception of the Winter Olympics and is probably after the decision to add the sport to the Olympics.

And I'm really not sure what you were going for with the 109 years ago (1902). That date is long before the Winter Olympics were considered and is several years after the first modern Olympics (1896). Although, as it turns out 1902 is apparently the year that hockey was first played in Europe.

So, whats a few decades, non-sequiters' & lazy inaccuracies between a couple of Keon fans rojac?. You do realize February 1927 was when Conn Smythe unveiled the Leafs logo & jersey, and therefore, insofar as Im concerned, thats when the NHL was really formed. You know, I once had a Math teacher who expected exact & correct answers on tests. When I handed in my "interpretations" instead, well, it just wasnt very nice, I can tell you. And thats all I have to say about that. ... :laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,019
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
You can do better, Jussi. Some of us don't want believe this is some kind of altruistic or selfless pursuit. Heck, look at how much money is spent on these athletes, which arguably could be put to better uses in their respective societies.

All the entities under discussion are in this for the money, and they make a ton of of it. Otherwise, there would be no disputes.

For some reason people think IOC is only making money for themselves with the tv rights etc. but the info about the distribution of that money was already linked in a another thread.
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,019
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
By the way, for those saying the KHL takes a hit, their regular season ends in February so the season is a lot shorter and the impact of an Olympic break in much less considering they already have an international break in February due to the EHT event in Sweden.
 

jekoh

Registered User
Jun 8, 2004
4,416
4
Its an antiquated & lugubrious event best reserved for semi-pro's & retired pro's with at least a liter of gas left in their tanks, top tier college & Jr. players etc etc etc.
The only antiquated thing about the Olympics is the notion that they are for "amateurs".

In fact they were meant for the top athletes from the very beginning.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
For some reason people think IOC is only making money for themselves with the tv rights etc. but the info about the distribution of that money was already linked in a another thread.


I posted something earlier in this thread. They keep 8% in administrative capacity. Nevertheless, that's a lot of money, and the entire effort has certainly taken on a very commercial/big event feeling. I just chafe at the notions that it is an ideal of some sort.
 

jekoh

Registered User
Jun 8, 2004
4,416
4
:shakehead

Im no apologist or fan of the NHL's business practices, but c'mon. For shutting down & providing the talent, with risk to same, the sizzle to the steak, they along with the NHLPA dont deserve compensation?
They deserve whatever they can negotiate with their players. Apparently they can get anything they want :laugh: so that shouldn't be a problem. The IOC on the other hand has no reason to give anything to any league.

But it's a moot point considering the IOC is never going to pay anything. After all, they had the olympics without the NHL for nearly 80 years, and i'm not sure many in the ioc would mind all that much if the nhlers withdrew.

René Fasel would though, as he was the one responsible for getting the nhl on board in 98. As you know, or maybe you don't, he went as far as to mess with the integrity of the competition by allowing 6 teams to go through to the 2nd round and effectively not allowing Slovakia to use their best. Calling him and the IOC "uncompromising" really shows a tremendous understanding of the various issues.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
The only antiquated thing about the Olympics is the notion that they are for "amateurs". In fact they were meant for the top athletes from the very beginning.

Absolutely. "Patron" as opposed to "Commercial" sponsorships of individual athletes & events goes all the way back to the games creation's in Greece. Todays' athletes receive funding (in most cases) from their individual countries governing sports bodies, along with prize money, often 5 or 6 figures if they medal. Never mind the appearance, performance & ongoing commercial sponsorships many if not most receive from their individual & or teams commercial sponsors. Nothing "amateur" about it. By "antiquated", Im referencing the IOC's "Captain Kidd" like business practices, spying Galleons of Gold, blackmailing the vessels country of origin for its return while emptying the holds. Antiquated. 16th century. Yet still very effective.
:arr:

René Fasel would though, as he was the one responsible for getting the nhl on board in 98. As you know, or maybe you don't, he went as far as to mess with the integrity of the competition by allowing 6 teams to go through to the 2nd round and effectively not allowing Slovakia to use their best. Calling him and the IOC "uncompromising" really shows a tremendous understanding of the various issues.

Yepp. Caught it. Masterful. The Chicanery never stops. And this from a former hockey player & referee.... The Slovak's forgot to send Rene' his annual alms. Tubs' of Black Sea Caviar from the endangered Sturgeon, Twin Truffle Hogs to dig up the tuber on his estate outside of Fribourg, the casks' of vintage Perrier Jouet'......
:nono::pb:
 
Last edited:

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
They deserve whatever they can negotiate with their players. Apparently they can get anything they want :laugh: so that shouldn't be a problem. The IOC on the other hand has no reason to give anything to any league.

But it's a moot point considering the IOC is never going to pay anything. After all, they had the olympics without the NHL for nearly 80 years, and i'm not sure many in the ioc would mind all that much if the nhlers withdrew.

René Fasel would though, as he was the one responsible for getting the nhl on board in 98. As you know, or maybe you don't, he went as far as to mess with the integrity of the competition by allowing 6 teams to go through to the 2nd round and effectively not allowing Slovakia to use their best. Calling him and the IOC "uncompromising" really shows a tremendous understanding of the various issues.

And maybe when you get as good at listing out what the players did get as you are at inserting that same emoticon, we can continue the debate. Must be nice to just play smilies all day.

;):laugh::):sarcasm:
 

bluesfan94

Registered User
Jan 7, 2008
30,715
8,079
St. Louis
I posted something earlier in this thread. They keep 8% in administrative capacity. Nevertheless, that's a lot of money, and the entire effort has certainly taken on a very commercial/big event feeling. I just chafe at the notions that it is an ideal of some sort.

Doesn't that include paying all employees, renting/buying office space, maintaining that office space, etc? Because that could most likely easily add up to the 8%, especially if the IOC has hundreds of employees stretched across the globe, meaning that going to meetings would include long plane trips and hotel stays which would be subsidized by the IOC.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->