Prospect Info: Logan Stanley: How has he progressed?

[Mortimer Snerd]

I'd imagine if other leagues get going which it seems like they may try and Europe is in full swing they will still have scouting staff, not sure if the coaches still get paid so there is that. The arena lights will still be on so there is that as well.

So without fans the NHL is dead in the water is what you are saying. What if we don't find a vaccine that allows for adequate fans for another 2 or 3 years. Unlikely but what if?

Does the NHL just sit on it's hands while literally every single other league in the world plays? The money just won't be there from Rogers or NBC or anyone. Hockey had a big return because it was one of the few sports on but that is still a drop in the bucket compared to what the NFL is likely to bring, compared to what the NBA brings. Who takes the L here? I seriously doubt the players are budging.

The only difference in arena costs between having games with no fans or having no games is the cost of making ice.

If they are shut down for a year they will be able to choose to keep spending on some things or not, like scouts and coaches.

Yes, what if?

There is only one factor in this equation. Playing costs more money than not playing. Where is the money going to come from? I keep asking. You keep not answering.

It doesn't make any difference what any other league in the world does or does not do. Whatever they do, they need to come up with money too. Are the Euro leagues as dependent as the NHL on ticket sales? Or do they get a larger part of their income from TV and from the advertising plastered all over their uniforms? IDK. They have much lower salaries, so I can see TV money being enough for them.

As @surixon pointed out, they are deferring the 50/50 sharing of HRR. As long as the owners can finance it, they can operate with the loss of revenue. I don't think most owners will be able to finance it for very long. But for 1 season, they should be able to do it. They have the incentive of protecting the value of their franchises. With expansion teams paying 650 mil to enter, that is a lot of value. It means all teams taking on substantial debt, but it will allow them to play. If there is no vaccine for 2-3 years, the NHL is in trouble.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

What we're hearing about the 2020-21 NHL season

This ESPN article makes it seem like the owners are prepared to take the L if it means returning to play.

60-65 game schedule, limited fans, likely a bubble situation for the players again (many may opt out), I could see some of the older guys like Chara walking away from this season.

Yes they are prepared for a loss. Beyond that, it says they don't know what next season will look like. They are kicking around all kinds of ideas, including some that can't happen until there is a vaccine.

How big a loss will they be willing, or able to absorb? It will mean borrowing to cover operating costs. Banks aren't enthusiastic about loaning money for operations. It needs to be secured with tangible assets. Will the teams retain their market value when they have little revenue? Banks will loan money based on perceived market value.

 

[Daximus]

The only difference in arena costs between having games with no fans or having no games is the cost of making ice.

If they are shut down for a year they will be able to choose to keep spending on some things or not, like scouts and coaches.

Yes, what if?

There is only one factor in this equation. Playing costs more money than not playing. Where is the money going to come from? I keep asking. You keep not answering.

It doesn't make any difference what any other league in the world does or does not do. Whatever they do, they need to come up with money too. Are the Euro leagues as dependent as the NHL on ticket sales? Or do they get a larger part of their income from TV and from the advertising plastered all over their uniforms? IDK. They have much lower salaries, so I can see TV money being enough for them.

As @surixon pointed out, they are deferring the 50/50 sharing of HRR. As long as the owners can finance it, they can operate with the loss of revenue. I don't think most owners will be able to finance it for very long. But for 1 season, they should be able to do it. They have the incentive of protecting the value of their franchises. With expansion teams paying 650 mil to enter, that is a lot of value. It means all teams taking on substantial debt, but it will allow them to play. If there is no vaccine for 2-3 years, the NHL is in trouble.

What I'm saying is there are likely unforeseen costs to not playing a season at work here. Rogers and NBC have already payed the NHL real dollars to broadcast games. When they have no games to broadcast, those real dollars must be paid back as the NHL is likely in breach of the contract they signed. I don't know how that goes down, whether the broadcaster would sue the league for breach of contract to get out of said contract would be bad for the league, as those contracts were operating at a loss for those broadcasters. NBC only has 1 year left on their deal, so to end up back at the negotiation table a year early isn't such a big deal. But the flip side of that is if the NHL is the only league not playing through the pandemic and losing viewership in the states, why would a broadcaster give the NHL a massive TV deal in the states?

For Rogers they paid, $5.232 billion for 12 years of NHL games. Which to date has cost them a lot of money and forced them to make cuts wherever they can, while still not making a profit. The only time they seem to make money is when they can get at least 6 Canadian teams in playoff action, conversely they made good on their deal with during August. If the NHL doesn't return to play then the threat is that Rogers could sue them for breach of contract in order to get out of said contract, which is only entering it's 7th year. If Rogers can successfully get out of said contract the NHL will lose $2.616 billion. And have to renegotiate a new contract for rights in Canada. With Rogers losing money hand over fist why would any broadcaster now be willing to anti-up that kind of money ever again?

The negotiation table would likely consist of Rogers (Sportsnet), Bell (TSN) and CBC. So Rogers beat out both Bell and CBC with a massive deal that cost them money, deals that neither Bell or CBC were willing to counter. I don't see the NHL getting another deal that nets them $436,000,000 per season of games. It's just not going to happen again, not with how much Rogers was already losing, a deal they admittedly regret.

So if the NHL enters 20/21 with no new deals and bullish broadcasters unsure of whether they can even make money on those deals. Does the NHL potentially have far more to lose as a league compared to the personal loses of teams by not playing at all? Based on what I can gather every team stands to lose $14,000,000 guaranteed income per season if Rogers finds a way out of that contract. And who knows what a new US contract could look like if the NHL decides not to play in 20/21.

 

[Daximus]

Yes they are prepared for a loss. Beyond that, it says they don't know what next season will look like. They are kicking around all kinds of ideas, including some that can't happen until there is a vaccine.

How big a loss will they be willing, or able to absorb? It will mean borrowing to cover operating costs. Banks aren't enthusiastic about loaning money for operations. It needs to be secured with tangible assets. Will the teams retain their market value when they have little revenue? Banks will loan money based on perceived market value.

I think they just want to do something in order to not lose that Rogers deal and to show the American market there is some potential money to be made. The NHL has been eyeing a major American TV deal for years, it's the cash cow they have been after and really the only reason they expanded into the south at all in the first place. Their American deal is worth $200m a year but if they can push for higher they will. If ratings for Hockey are big in the last year of the NBC deal, they could really cash in. If there is no season I wonder what that means for the next deal.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

What I'm saying is there are likely unforeseen costs to not playing a season at work here. Rogers and NBC have already payed the NHL real dollars to broadcast games. When they have no games to broadcast, those real dollars must be paid back as the NHL is likely in breach of the contract they signed. I don't know how that goes down, whether the broadcaster would sue the league for breach of contract to get out of said contract would be bad for the league, as those contracts were operating at a loss for those broadcasters. NBC only has 1 year left on their deal, so to end up back at the negotiation table a year early isn't such a big deal. But the flip side of that is if the NHL is the only league not playing through the pandemic and losing viewership in the states, why would a broadcaster give the NHL a massive TV deal in the states?

For Rogers they paid, $5.232 billion for 12 years of NHL games. Which to date has cost them a lot of money and forced them to make cuts wherever they can, while still not making a profit. The only time they seem to make money is when they can get at least 6 Canadian teams in playoff action, conversely they made good on their deal with during August. If the NHL doesn't return to play then the threat is that Rogers could sue them for breach of contract in order to get out of said contract, which is only entering it's 7th year. If Rogers can successfully get out of said contract the NHL will lose $2.616 billion. And have to renegotiate a new contract for rights in Canada. With Rogers losing money hand over fist why would any broadcaster now be willing to anti-up that kind of money ever again?

The negotiation table would likely consist of Rogers (Sportsnet), Bell (TSN) and CBC. So Rogers beat out both Bell and CBC with a massive deal that cost them money, deals that neither Bell or CBC were willing to counter. I don't see the NHL getting another deal that nets them $436,000,000 per season of games. It's just not going to happen again, not with how much Rogers was already losing, a deal they admittedly regret.

So if the NHL enters 20/21 with no new deals and bullish broadcasters unsure of whether they can even make money on those deals. Does the NHL potentially have far more to lose as a league compared to the personal loses of teams by not playing at all? Based on what I can gather every team stands to lose $14,000,000 guaranteed income per season if Rogers finds a way out of that contract. And who knows what a new US contract could look like if the NHL decides not to play in 20/21.

And what I am saying is that it isn't a matter of choice, even determined choice. If the money isn't there, it isn't there. One way or another there has to be money to pay the bills. It is that simple. The NHL doesn't have any God given right to play, or even exist.

I missed, or misunderstood the way the new CBA is planned to work. It amounts to the owners loaning money to the players - to be payed back by a stagnant cap once the fans, and the money, are back. There is a limit to how far the owners will be willing and able to do that. I don't know where that limit will be. It will vary from owner to owner to some extent. It seems reasonable to me to expect it to cover this season and next. I don't know if it could go on any longer or not.

Have the TV networks paid in advance for next season? The reason TV deals might be renegotiated is ratings increasing due to Covid on the one hand and the possibility of no games on the other. TV is scrambling for content right now. No other league is going to be business as usual either. TV ratings for all leagues are likely to be better than normal because people have much more limited entertainment options. People can't go to the games live, just for a start. That doesn't mean TV networks are going to rush to the NHL offering more money for what they have already negotiated. But they will recognize the league's position of needing revenue to operate.

You can talk all you want about long term strategic issues of future TV contracts. It doesn't make any difference if the NHL doesn't have the money to pay the bills.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think they just want to do something in order to not lose that Rogers deal and to show the American market there is some potential money to be made. The NHL has been eyeing a major American TV deal for years, it's the cash cow they have been after and really the only reason they expanded into the south at all in the first place. Their American deal is worth $200m a year but if they can push for higher they will. If ratings for Hockey are big in the last year of the NBC deal, they could really cash in. If there is no season I wonder what that means for the next deal.

You are making a case for the owners to be highly motivated to play. I never said anything different than that. They have huge amounts of money at stake. They will obviously try very hard, and spend real money, to have a season. But there are things happening here that are beyond their control.

What if the Canadian Gov't refuses to allow them to travel across the border? What if some jurisdictions allow limited fan attendance and others allow none? There are many more questions like those. What if the spread of Covid gets much worse as the kids go back to school and other things re-open?

The NHL's bubble plan is working very well so far and there is no reason to expect it to break down. But it is massively different than trying to play a regular season with players living in their homes and traveling from city to city. It remains to be seen whether they can come up with a workable plan for next season or not. I'm not saying there will not be a 2021 season. I'm saying I'm not convinced that it will happen.

The solution is a vaccine. I'm still hopeful that a successful vaccine is not too much farther away. But there is no guarantee that we will have one any time soon.

 

[Daximus]

You are making a case for the owners to be highly motivated to play. I never said anything different than that. They have huge amounts of money at stake. They will obviously try very hard, and spend real money, to have a season. But there are things happening here that are beyond their control.

What if the Canadian Gov't refuses to allow them to travel across the border? What if some jurisdictions allow limited fan attendance and others allow none? There are many more questions like those. What if the spread of Covid gets much worse as the kids go back to school and other things re-open?

The NHL's bubble plan is working very well so far and there is no reason to expect it to break down. But it is massively different than trying to play a regular season with players living in their homes and traveling from city to city. It remains to be seen whether they can come up with a workable plan for next season or not. I'm not saying there will not be a 2021 season. I'm saying I'm not convinced that it will happen.

The solution is a vaccine. I'm still hopeful that a successful vaccine is not too much farther away. But there is no guarantee that we will have one any time soon.

I think given the US doesn't seem to give a crap if the NFL and MLB travels that they will likely play in the States if they have to. It would mean that all 7 Canadian teams will have to find somewhere in the US to play out of but without fans I don't see that as being a major issue. Far easier to do that then have all 24 US teams come up to Canada and live in a bubble. It's trying times but I think where there is a will there is a way. The NHL has been looking to really score on their next US contract, probably somewhere to the tune of $700 million a season over at least 10 years, along with their Canadian contract that's a guaranteed $36,000,00 in yearly revenue per team, plus each team would have their own local TV contract as well. That makes the league a viable player on the NA market and also allows them to reinvest more in their local communities as well.

 

[Daximus]

And what I am saying is that it isn't a matter of choice, even determined choice. If the money isn't there, it isn't there. One way or another there has to be money to pay the bills. It is that simple. The NHL doesn't have any God given right to play, or even exist.

I missed, or misunderstood the way the new CBA is planned to work. It amounts to the owners loaning money to the players - to be payed back by a stagnant cap once the fans, and the money, are back. There is a limit to how far the owners will be willing and able to do that. I don't know where that limit will be. It will vary from owner to owner to some extent. It seems reasonable to me to expect it to cover this season and next. I don't know if it could go on any longer or not.

Have the TV networks paid in advance for next season? The reason TV deals might be renegotiated is ratings increasing due to Covid on the one hand and the possibility of no games on the other. TV is scrambling for content right now. No other league is going to be business as usual either. TV ratings for all leagues are likely to be better than normal because people have much more limited entertainment options. People can't go to the games live, just for a start. That doesn't mean TV networks are going to rush to the NHL offering more money for what they have already negotiated. But they will recognize the league's position of needing revenue to operate.

You can talk all you want about long term strategic issues of future TV contracts. It doesn't make any difference if the NHL doesn't have the money to pay the bills.

I think they will find a way. Future billions could be on the line here, scoring themselves a major US TV deal has been the plan since Bettman took over many years ago. It's literally goal #1 for the NHL and they are in sight of it now, sitting out the season could put a damper on that contract.

 

[ps241]

I think they will find a way. Future billions could be on the line here, scoring themselves a major US TV deal has been the plan since Bettman took over many years ago. It's literally goal #1 for the NHL and they are in sight of it now, sitting out the season could put a damper on that contract.

On the media front my speculation is that when it comes to pro sports distribution it will transition more to streaming and subscription base. Amazon , Spotify, or other are major players I expect to disrupt the incumbents and blow it all up. Hockey I am less sure on but other major sports will be in the cross hairs.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think given the US doesn't seem to give a crap if the NFL and MLB travels that they will likely play in the States if they have to. It would mean that all 7 Canadian teams will have to find somewhere in the US to play out of but without fans I don't see that as being a major issue. Far easier to do that then have all 24 US teams come up to Canada and live in a bubble. It's trying times but I think where there is a will there is a way. The NHL has been looking to really score on their next US contract, probably somewhere to the tune of $700 million a season over at least 10 years, along with their Canadian contract that's a guaranteed $36,000,00 in yearly revenue per team, plus each team would have their own local TV contract as well. That makes the league a viable player on the NA market and also allows them to reinvest more in their local communities as well.

That could happen. But there are a lot of other questions too. I don't think the bubble idea will fly for a regular season.

The US doesn't seem to give a crap about Covid-19. Will that continue? Will MLB and the NFL be able to do it? Remains to be seen. Being allowed by governments is not the whole story.

Football and hockey are much more contact games than baseball. That may make the spread of disease much worse. Or it may be that just being together as a team will make them all about the same. That too remains to be seen.

The money involved means there certainly is a will. We know that. We'll see if there is a way.

 

[Daximus]

On the media front my speculation is that when it comes to pro sports distribution it will transition more to streaming and subscription base. Amazon , Spotify, or other are major players I expect to disrupt the incumbents and blow it all up. Hockey I am less sure on but other major sports will be in the cross hairs.

The interesting thing is I think NBC has first dibs to negotiate but if either party walks away things could open up. I expect DAZN to possibly make a play, Amazon will be in there for sure, ESPN+ will be in there. They could also go with a multi-party deal that see's things split up among in different regions. DAZN is making major plays as they are expected to go after the NFL whose rights are up, the NHL and the NBA. The NHL is reportedly refusing to negotiate until the NFL deal is done. When the dust clears by I think 2022 DAZN could have the NFL, NHL and NBA streaming on their service for $20 a month in the US. Cable would effectively be dead south of the border.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

If DAZN did that I would cut my cable too.

 

[ps241]

The interesting thing is I think NBC has first dibs to negotiate but if either party walks away things could open up. I expect DAZN to possibly make a play, Amazon will be in there for sure, ESPN+ will be in there. They could also go with a multi-party deal that see's things split up among in different regions. DAZN is making major plays as they are expected to go after the NFL whose rights are up, the NHL and the NBA. The NHL is reportedly refusing to negotiate until the NFL deal is done. When the dust clears by I think 2022 DAZN could have the NFL, NHL and NBA streaming on their service for $20 a month in the US. Cable would effectively be dead south of the border.

If DAZN did that I would cut my cable too.

Its only a matter of time before there is major disruption. Sports is a natural target for the new players and they will have way more money to spend.

 

[Daximus]

If DAZN did that I would cut my cable too.

Problem is we are still at the mercy of the Rogers deal up north here until 2026.
So that would likely only stream on the US version of DAZN. You could use a VPN but you likely get more US centric games, Hawks, Wings, LA, NYR.

 

[Daximus]

Its only a matter of time before there is major disruption. Sports is a natural target for the new players and they will have way more money to spend.

Yeah here in Canada we aren't going to see any major change for awhile as far as the NHL is concerned. Luckily SaskTel came out with a streaming box with a $20 a month subscription so I cut my cable bill from $100 to $20 a month and it has every sports channel in HD.

 

[Hobby Bull]

Is this the Logan Stanley thread?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think they will find a way. Future billions could be on the line here, scoring themselves a major US TV deal has been the plan since Bettman took over many years ago. It's literally goal #1 for the NHL and they are in sight of it now, sitting out the season could put a damper on that contract.

Not sure if I replied to this post before or not, and this discussion is OT for this thread so I will just say this one thing.

Reword it just a bit and I agree. I think they will pull out all the stops to try to make it work. They will find a way if there is a way to be found.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Its only a matter of time before there is major disruption. Sports is a natural target for the new players and they will have way more money to spend.

Certainly disruption is coming. But why would they have more money to spend?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Is this the Logan Stanley thread?

Sorry. Do we have a media thread?

I guess someone could start one. Or we could just move all this to the Vesalainen thread. Nobody wants to talk about him anymore anyway.

 

[jrs]

Is this the Logan Stanley thread?

He’s tall eh

 

[Duke749]

Its only a matter of time before there is major disruption. Sports is a natural target for the new players and they will have way more money to spend.

Millions of people can’t wait for that either. The sooner the better.

 

[garret9]

Any rumblings of what fresh hell we can expect from this year's pick?

Sorry. No more insidrrr info from me. Not blogging so can't slip that stuff... and if I did they'd see (there is some hockey ops who read randomly here from time to time).

 

[Whileee]

Any rumblings of what fresh hell we can expect from this year's pick?

Scheifele
Trouba
Morrissey
Ehlers
Connor
Roslovic
Laine
Stanley
Vesalainen
Heinola

So, maybe 1 pure miss out of 10 first round picks (average at around pick #13) so far? Decent hit rate, don't you think?

 

[ps241]

Scheifele
Trouba
Morrissey
Ehlers
Connor
Roslovic
Laine
Stanley
Vesalainen
Heinola

So, maybe 1 pure miss out of 10 first round picks (average at around pick #13) so far? Decent hit rate, don't you think?

Our team has been excellent drafting in the first round.

 

[Peggy]

Yes they are prepared for a loss. Beyond that, it says they don't know what next season will look like. They are kicking around all kinds of ideas, including some that can't happen until there is a vaccine.

How big a loss will they be willing, or able to absorb? It will mean borrowing to cover operating costs. Banks aren't enthusiastic about loaning money for operations. It needs to be secured with tangible assets. Will the teams retain their market value when they have little revenue? Banks will loan money based on perceived market value.

Waiting for a vaccine isn't the answer lol. If masks are so important, spaced seating and mandatory masks should be good enough