NHL officially out of 2018 Olympics

[Stewie 721]

17 hours ago, chippa13 said:

Owners maybe, but not the American players. They all grew up with the history of the Miracle on Ice and would love a chance at that. 

I didnt realize the Americans were such a big underdog still.

[marka 526]

Howdy,

1 hour ago, Hills said:

The reason the NHL wants to extend the CBA is because the players are currently getting screwed with Escrow and revenue sharing. They had 15% of their salaries put into escrow in 2014-15 and got 2.05% back from that. TSN had a breakdown of this revenue that can be seen below. From 2009-10 season to 2014-15 season the players have lost the following percentage of salary to escrow to balance the 50/50 revenue sharing: 1.1%, 2.4%, 0.5%, 14.7%, 10.2%, 12.95%. There are no numbers that I can find for 2015-16 season yet but the withheld amount was the highest ever at 17%.

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/nhl-players-set-aside-15-5-of-salary-in-early-escrow-1.590263

The players took a significant pay cut and risk just signing the CBA, there is no reason for them to give up anything more to go to the Olympics. The NHL would set a target, it was met and then the NHL moved the goal posts. The reason they wanted to extend the CBA is because the current one is ridiculously titled on the owners side.

The argument of shutting down the season and losing 2 weeks of hockey is legitimate but they never lose the actual games, the season isn't shortened in terms of number of games rather just a compressed schedule. Does the break affect interest and demand to go to games? I can't answer that but I am sure the NHL can pull some specially calculated numbers up to prove how much money they lose when they do this, and I am sure a different statistician/accountant could pull some other numbers up to show it increases demand. Not to mention a lot of the owners own the rink that the teams are in, so they are still free to book other events with the 2 week of stoppage. But let's be real, it isn't about losing 2 weeks of revenue since the league is happy to lose half a season of revenue in locking out the players. Yes they ended up getting more out of it since the CBA is owner sided, but they 2 weeks of stoppage is nothing to them.

The World Cup of Hockey reportedly generated about $60 Million, which is split 50/50 between players and owners. Which means the owners got approximately $30 Million from the irrelevant exhibition tournament (irrelevant since the 2nd place team isn't a country...). Shouldn't that cover the cost of the Olympics?

My understanding is that the CBA didn't cover the Olympics, so its not like the players already gave up something for the Olympics by agreeing to it.  Again, the players position seems to be "why should we have to give up anything to go to the Olympics and play for free?", but the answer seems to clearly be "because you want to do that".  You can flip it around as well... Why should team owners give up anything to support the Olympics?

The answer in both cases would seem to be "because its good for hockey in general".  And that's totally valid and I agree, but in that case, it would seem like everyone involved should be willing to give up something.  Particularly when the alternative is what we have now.

As to the World Cup thing... You appear to have answered your own question.  The owners & players made 30 million each from their participation.  What other justification for it do you need?  I guarantee that the owners (and players) don't think its irrelevant when they're making money.  Saying "why can't that pay for the Olympics?" seems pretty silly...

The owners are (and must be) businessmen first.  Ideally they're fans second

Hopefully this can still be worked out.  And I'm sure the owners will reap what they sow here, either in the next round of nhlpa contract talks or fan blowback.  I can't imagine that as a group they'd be so short sighted as to not consider those things.

Mark

[Hills 713]

15 minutes ago, marka said:

Howdy,

My understanding is that the CBA didn't cover the Olympics, so its not like the players already gave up something for the Olympics by agreeing to it.  Again, the players position seems to be "why should we have to give up anything to go to the Olympics and play for free?", but the answer seems to clearly be "because you want to do that".  You can flip it around as well... Why should team owners give up anything to support the Olympics?

The answer in both cases would seem to be "because its good for hockey in general".  And that's totally valid and I agree, but in that case, it would seem like everyone involved should be willing to give up something.  Particularly when the alternative is what we have now.

As to the World Cup thing... You appear to have answered your own question.  The owners & players made 30 million each from their participation.  What other justification for it do you need?  I guarantee that the owners (and players) don't think its irrelevant when they're making money.  Saying "why can't that pay for the Olympics?" seems pretty silly...

The owners are (and must be) businessmen first.  Ideally they're fans second

Hopefully this can still be worked out.  And I'm sure the owners will reap what they sow here, either in the next round of nhlpa contract talks or fan blowback.  I can't imagine that as a group they'd be so short sighted as to not consider those things.

Mark

I never said the CBA covered the Olympics. The point was the owners keep asking for more and more and there is a very good reason the players said no to extending the CBA. The players position is "We aren't going to get screwed more by this CBA" instead of "We aren't going to give up anything more from this CBA." It was assumed (and wrongfully) that signing the CBA and signing up for the WCH meant the NHL would be at the Olympics. Again let's just totally ignore how the NHL asked for travel and insurance expenses. Got it, then demanded CBA extension and tried to get the ability to use Olympics as a marketing tool.

The only thing the team owners are giving up is a possible injury for the player. The season takes a break but the number of games are the same, of which again the owners who are often the arena owners can book the venue for other events in the 2 week shutdown.

The whole point of the World Cup was to have another international event where the NHL can gain money off of. Which was thought to support the decision for the players to go to the Olympics since the "lost" revenue would be regained.

This is a group who totally screwed up everything to do with the John Scott saga... their decisions are often not the best. There is one thing about being businessmen first.

[chippa13 1844]

1 hour ago, Stewie said:

I didnt realize the Americans were such a big underdog still.

Not necessarily the big underdog anymore but it is the biggest moment in USA men's Olympic hockey that has been drilled into every American hockey player since it happened.

[chippa13 1844]

2 hours ago, Hills said:

The reason the NHL wants to extend the CBA is because the players are currently getting screwed with Escrow and revenue sharing. They had 15% of their salaries put into escrow in 2014-15 and got 2.05% back from that. TSN had a breakdown of this revenue that can be seen below. From 2009-10 season to 2014-15 season the players have lost the following percentage of salary to escrow to balance the 50/50 revenue sharing: 1.1%, 2.4%, 0.5%, 14.7%, 10.2%, 12.95%. There are no numbers that I can find for 2015-16 season yet but the withheld amount was the highest ever at 17%.

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/nhl-players-set-aside-15-5-of-salary-in-early-escrow-1.590263

The players took a significant pay cut and risk just signing the CBA, there is no reason for them to give up anything more to go to the Olympics. The NHL would set a target, it was met and then the NHL moved the goal posts. The reason they wanted to extend the CBA is because the current one is ridiculously titled on the owners side.

The argument of shutting down the season and losing 2 weeks of hockey is legitimate but they never lose the actual games, the season isn't shortened in terms of number of games rather just a compressed schedule. Does the break affect interest and demand to go to games? I can't answer that but I am sure the NHL can pull some specially calculated numbers up to prove how much money they lose when they do this, and I am sure a different statistician/accountant could pull some other numbers up to show it increases demand. Not to mention a lot of the owners own the rink that the teams are in, so they are still free to book other events with the 2 week of stoppage. But let's be real, it isn't about losing 2 weeks of revenue since the league is happy to lose half a season of revenue in locking out the players. Yes they ended up getting more out of it since the CBA is owner sided, but they 2 weeks of stoppage is nothing to them.

The World Cup of Hockey reportedly generated about $60 Million, which is split 50/50 between players and owners. Which means the owners got approximately $30 Million from the irrelevant exhibition tournament (irrelevant since the 2nd place team isn't a country...). Shouldn't that cover the cost of the Olympics?

Why should an NHL owner cover one cost of anything Olympics related? With all of the horrible news that comes out of every nation that hosts games, I'm surprised that anyone still wants to support the corrupt institution that is the Olympic games.

As for the 2 week stoppage, how many people have lamented over the compressed schedule this season? How many more will carp about doing it 2 seasons in a row. The break absolutely impacts interest and demand, especially in bubble/non-traditional hockey cities. You've got teams working hard to draw interest and all of the sudden they have nothing to offer for two weeks and a half weeks. By the way, they're still playing an 82 game schedule so it isn't like the owners are magically getting more days to book other events in the arenas.

As for the "pay cut", I'm pretty sure Jonathan Toews isn't cutting coupons.

[Hills 713]

Just now, chippa13 said:

Why should an NHL owner cover one cost of anything Olympics related? With all of the horrible news that comes out of every nation that hosts games, I'm surprised that anyone still wants to support the corrupt institution that is the Olympic games.

The NHL wasn't going to be covering the cost of anything. IIHF was going to front it. The "shouldn't that cover the cost of the Olympics" was just a statement of why the WCH exists in the first place.

Also, while the IOC is corrupt and a joke, and the majority of the Olympics are terrible. I was happy with the results of Vancouver and I recall London being relatively successful.

[chippa13 1844]

Every single time that they bring up Boston as a potential host for the Olympics I cringe.

[Hills 713]

4 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

Every single time that they bring up Boston as a potential host for the Olympics I cringe.

Off topic but if Boston gets a Winter Olympics, I would go down there to catch a couple hockey games. The city is beautiful and I am sure the winter atmosphere would be great.

[chippa13 1844]

Getting around Boston would be a nightmare for the Olympics. I'd rather see Boston get the World Juniors. Plenty of top notch college rinks in the area with the Garden for the big matchups.

[IPv6Freely 2094]

First, I do question why olympic participation wasn't defined one way or another in the CBA. That's probably on the NHLPA, if it was THAT important for the players.

Second, as far as the players not accepting an extension to the CBA in exchange for olympic participation... Do they think the next CBA will actually be BETTER for the players? It seems to get worse for them every time. Honestly if I were an NHL player I'd almost prefer what I have now compared to what might be coming... However, I can also imagine that 90% of the NHL players wouldn't be happy tacking on another couple years for the current CBA agreement just so the elite 10% gets to go to the olympics. Again that's assuming the consensus among the players is that they will somehow get a better deal from the next round of CBA negotiations... 

[chippa13 1844]

You should also imagine that much of that 90% wouldn't be thrilled with a lockout that mainly only benefits the top 10% after some or all of a season of salary not being earned.

[psulion22 402]

Why should the owners give away their assets for free?  I just don't get that logic.  This whole thing isn't just about the owners and players.  The IOC is playing a huge part here.

The owners get nothing from going to the Olympics.  Nothing.  It doesn't help the NHL after they are over.  It doesn't increase ticket or merchandise sales.  It doesn't get them better tv contracts.  So all of the excitement of TJ Oshie last Olympics, or Canada winning the Gold netted NHL owners $0.  They wanted to get something in return.  They originally asked the IOC for mechandising rights, meaning they could sell items that would be cross branded, essentially allowing them to put the rings on NHL merch.  The IOC refused.  Then they asked to be named an "official sponsor" of the Olympics so that they could use the NHL logo for advertising and marketing during Olympic broadcasts (of games showing the NHL's players).  The IOC again refused.  Then the IOC said they were taking away all the funding they were getting.  The IIHF eventually stepped in and covered those costs, but it was still a slap in the face to the NHL.  Then, to try and recover something, they told the players that they would go to the Olympics if they extended the CBA, meaning a potential lockout would be postponed two years.  The players refused that.  It was kind of low for them to try that tactic.  But then again, why should the owner's agree to risk their assets and disrupt their business if they aren't getting concessions from the other parties?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/hate-the-ioc-not-bettman-for-nhl-players-missing-2018-olympics-120841649.html

[Kgbeast 195]

It is kind of like why an employer would want to let his employees go to jury duty or go vote. Employer looses the workforce, pays them while they are there, looses whatever momentum, and gets 0 in return. Not everything has to earn money, some things are worth loosing the earnings for. I know that in USA Olympics are pretty unpopular, but in other countries, it is the only thing that people watch for 2 weeks. So while USA and Canada teams at Olympics do very little locally, they mean a great deal out there, because everyone wants to see how their team does against the unbeatable Canada and what not because it is full of NHL monsters. Absence of NHL in the Olympics sends a negative message and is a let down to millions of fans of the sport internationally. I am sure KHL will not mind though, they gladly pick up any slack they can.

[adam14 182]

The NHL is still a business at the end of the day, not a charity. Using rough numbers; the nhl plays a grand total of 1230 games a season as a whole. Roughly played october through march thats roughly 52 different game combinations a week. two and a half weeks is roughly 130 games with empty arenas and teams throughout the league losing revenue. Add in the fact that people already hate the condensed schedule with the bye week this would up those weekly averages even higher. Then comes risk of injury to players as seen with Tavares at the last Olympics being injured for the remainder of the season and pretty much killing the Islanders play off push. Then there is exhaustion from an added 15 games to the schedule.

Biggest in my opinion is the fact that in march NHL and NBA are the only major sports on tv and the only real window that the NHL has to televise to non traditional fans. Shut down for two weeks where the international games wont even be televised and its another missed opportunity.

I can totally see where the GM's and the NHL is coming from.

[Kgbeast 195]

Not sure why letting players go to compete in the Olympics once every 4 years would turn NHL into a charity. There are no lost games either, all 1230 or whatever games will still be played, just with a little brake in schedule especially if bye-week is waved that year. As for injuries, these can happen regardless if one goes to Olympics or not. 

By the way, can AHL go?

[adam14 182]

7 hours ago, Kgbeast said:

Not sure why letting players go to compete in the Olympics once every 4 years would turn NHL into a charity. There are no lost games either, all 1230 or whatever games will still be played, just with a little brake in schedule especially if bye-week is waved that year. As for injuries, these can happen regardless if one goes to Olympics or not. 

By the way, can AHL go?

Because the NHL are giving away their assets and losing money for 2 and a half weeks for free? 

I was never concerned with lost games, my point about the number of games was to show how condensed the schedule already is and will only be more so. 

Agreed that injuries can happen anywhere but if I'm penguins brass I see a huge difference between me paying crosbys salary and him getting hurt helping the team get to the playoffs and him leaving to go play in a tournament with no impact on my team, gets hurt in a meaningless game then the pens are forced to put him on the shelf at the most vital point of the season 

[JR Boucicaut 3802]

9 hours ago, Kgbeast said:

By the way, can AHL go?

Good question.  My guess is no - if the players are property of the NHL club and they're down in the A, they won't be able to be called up if someone in the NHL gets hurt.

[psulion22 402]

17 hours ago, Kgbeast said:

It is kind of like why an employer would want to let his employees go to jury duty or go vote. Employer looses the workforce, pays them while they are there, looses whatever momentum, and gets 0 in return. Not everything has to earn money, some things are worth loosing the earnings for. I know that in USA Olympics are pretty unpopular, but in other countries, it is the only thing that people watch for 2 weeks. So while USA and Canada teams at Olympics do very little locally, they mean a great deal out there, because everyone wants to see how their team does against the unbeatable Canada and what not because it is full of NHL monsters. Absence of NHL in the Olympics sends a negative message and is a let down to millions of fans of the sport internationally. I am sure KHL will not mind though, they gladly pick up any slack they can.

An employer is legally required to allow employees to attend jury duty without repurcussions.  So that example doesn't work.

And all of that interest is great for the Olympics, but it doesn't do a thing to help the NHL.  It won't do anything to help the KHL either.  Fans are going to watch their country regardless of who is playing, particularly internationally.  The NHL players have no bearing on that.  There is absolutely no reason for the NHL to disrupt their season and send the players with no benefit to them in return.  

Maybe it will actually be better because the weaker teams may be more competitive now.

[Kgbeast 195]

21 hours ago, psulion22 said:

An employer is legally required to allow employees to attend jury duty without repurcussions.  So that example doesn't work.

And all of that interest is great for the Olympics, but it doesn't do a thing to help the NHL.  It won't do anything to help the KHL either.  Fans are going to watch their country regardless of who is playing, particularly internationally.  The NHL players have no bearing on that.  There is absolutely no reason for the NHL to disrupt their season and send the players with no benefit to them in return.  

Maybe it will actually be better because the weaker teams may be more competitive now.

It is a matter of perspective. The way I see it, voting and jury duty is a part of being USA citizen. These are two things that represent what being an American is about. It is rather sad that the government has to impose "repurcussions" (as you put it) on employers that somehow feel that performing the civic duties is below their business interests. Similarly, being an athlete, is to some degree is about performing in Olympics. If you look at figure skating, bob-sled, and most if not all of the remaining sports, it is considered to be the highest achievement to compete let alone win a medals at the Olympics. If an athlete is ready for and desires to go to Olympics, it is considered an oppression when a government is prohibiting them to go. Such athletes are granted a refuge in other countries if need be and the "repressive" governments are labeled as freedom violators. I was reading an ESPNs interview with Allan Walsh who says  NHL creating a poisonous atmosphere by opposing the Olympic participation. I do too understand the position of NHL, but I just find it unethical.   

[chippa13 1844]

Someone supporting the Olympics by calling another organization "unethical". Awesome.

[marka 526]

Howdy,

10 minutes ago, Kgbeast said:

It is a matter of perspective. The way I see it, voting and jury duty is a part of being USA citizen. These are two things that represent what being an American is about. It is rather sad that the government has to impose "repurcussions" (as you put it) on employers that somehow feel that performing the civic duties is below their business interests. Similarly, being an athlete, is to some degree is about performing in Olympics. If you look at figure skating, bob-sled, and most if not all of the remaining sports, it is considered to be the highest achievement to compete let alone win a medals at the Olympics. If an athlete is ready for and desires to go to Olympics, it is considered an oppression when a government is prohibiting them to go. Such athletes are granted a refuge in other countries if need be and the "repressive" governments are labeled as freedom violators. I was reading an ESPNs interview with Allan Walsh who says  NHL creating a poisonous atmosphere by opposing the Olympic participation. I do too understand the position of NHL, but I just find it unethical.   

 

Do you think a Stanley Cup or an Olympic Gold is a higher honor?  Ditto whatever the hell the NBA championship is called, etc.

I expect if there were professional Bobsled leagues, the Olympics would no longer be the highest achievement there either.  Comparing professional sports to amateur sports isn't apples/apples.

Mark

[Kgbeast 195]

10 minutes ago, marka said:

Howdy,

 

Do you think a Stanley Cup or an Olympic Gold is a higher honor?  Ditto whatever the hell the NBA championship is called, etc.

I expect if there were professional Bobsled leagues, the Olympics would no longer be the highest achievement there either.  Comparing professional sports to amateur sports isn't apples/apples.

Mark

I think the question is not to me, but to individual players. Ask Crosby or McDavid, or Ove. See what they say. I do not know... Most likely answers will differ.

Besides, we are not talking about a choice between Stanley cup or Olympic honors, we talking about having only one or both with added, fairly minor inconvenience and expense.

[Kgbeast 195]

14 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

Someone supporting the Olympics by calling another organization "unethical". Awesome.

I understand that IOC is corrupt and perhaps unethical in many respects. This however should not set the bar for everybody else. While IOC might be rotten, participation in Olympic games is not.

[chippa13 1844]

Saying the IOC is "perhaps unethical" is like saying the sun is "perhaps hot".

[Kgbeast 195]

2 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

Saying the IOC is "perhaps unethical" is like saying the sun is "perhaps hot".

besides a point still.