Its all over by the crying

[ponty 0]

Freaks!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=113764

[Chadd 916]

I just read the same article. No NHL hockey for the next 10 months if they cancel the season.

[JGraz15 53]

Lets call it a season...

[Fletch 219]

Just call it already.

Hopefully they can work on it over the next few months and bring the NHL back in time for the 2005-2006 season with some changes to the rules. A couple less teams wouldn't hurt things either.

Bettman and Goodenow should both be fired for this. They have had too much time to work on this and with the season being cancelled, they both have effectively failed at their respective jobs.

[mik3 1]

I'm not surprised though. I pretty much figured when the season didn't start by thanksgiving that nothing was going to happen.

Sad to see it go, but hopefully this will be a slap to everyone's face and they'll actually spend this time communicating, not just waiting till september or so to start again.

[ponty 0]

I say blow it all up first. I am talking a big bang.

Fire Bettman and all. Resolve the symptoms and then you will solve the problems.

The big question who should run the thing and get this done.

Darren Pang? Yup the NHL is sad indeed.

[Chadd 916]

Sad to see it go, but hopefully this will be a slap to everyone's face and they'll actually spend this time communicating, not just waiting till september or so to start again.

Judging by the last several months, I wouldn't count on it.

A couple less teams wouldn't hurt things either.

If they go to a low hard cap, they will have much less talent to work with and should cut teams.

Bettman and Goodenow should both be fired for this.  They have had too much time to work on this and with the season being cancelled, they both have effectively failed at their respective jobs.

We won't know who has failed until the CBA is signed. Sure they both failed us, but neither one answers to the fans.

[mik3 1]

That's probably the best thing, just cut the head off the situation.

[Jim A 4]

Bettman won't be fired..he is doing the owners bidding and they are holding him accountable to the salary cap he promised the teams that came into the leagues during the '90's expansion...he'd be fired if he didn't deliver...

Goodenow..well he'll be gone if the players don't gain any big options after they realized a cap isn't going away..ie. early UFA, etc..

[Chadd 916]

Bettman won't be fired..he is doing the owners bidding and they are holding him accountable to the salary cap he promised the teams that came into the leagues during the '90's expansion...he'd be fired if he didn't deliver...

Goodenow..well he'll be gone if the players don't gain any big options after they realized a cap isn't going away..ie. early UFA, etc..

Both of them should be gone shortly after a CBA is signed. They have built up too much ill will.

[ktang 34]

If we lose the season, Bettman and Goodenow were just doing their jobs. Sacrificing the season is just a way for each to show the other side that he will not budge from his original position. Both sides are hurting by not playing hockey, but each one is trying to hurt the other more. It's just part of the negotiations.

Both sides believe that they are in the "winning" position, so neither side wants to concede the major points and neither side wants to finalize a deal in time to save the season. Each side thinks that the other will cave in first, so each side is going for total "victory" instead of negotiating and compromising.

I wonder if Bettman promised the owners that he would get linkage, and Goodenow promised the players that he would get a new CBA without a cap? If they made those promises, then each will have to be dismissed before negotiations can truly move forward.

If the season is lost it will be a Phyrric victory for whichever side "wins". Some franchises will fold, and that will take NHL jobs with them. Revenues will be down, and both sides will feel that.

So, will the owners tell Bettman to give in first, or will the players demand a vote and tell Goodenow to give in? There seems to be a bit of both going on; e.g. Roenick's saying that a higher-level salary cap would be acceptable to the players.

[Chadd 916]

I wonder if Bettman promised the owners that he would get linkage, and Goodenow promised the players that he would get a new CBA without a cap? If they made those promises, then each will have to be dismissed before negotiations can truly move forward.

I don't think we even have to wonder about those two scenario's.

I understand your point that they were doing their jobs in trying to get the best for each side. But there is no reason of why they could start negotiating like this in Augest and September. There was no urgency what-so-ever from either side and they should both be punished because of that.,

Those two made it about beating the other guy, not doing what's best for the sport.

[jnicklo 0]

This'll cripple Hockey in the United States even more....

Heck, ESPN BARELY covered Hockey BEFORE the strike....imagine how they'll be if the NHL returns next season.

[MDE3 0]

If you watched Espn sportsnews last night, their head lines were" have we seen the last of these guys....permanently?"...followed by a pic of Lemieux(I think), and then St. Louis...

Then followed a couple of moments about casting blame with "rung in the head Roenick" and another of hockey's greatest intellectual luminaries..Barry Melrose....Roenick carried on about the "ridiculous" cap levels offered by the NHL...which he tried to indicate was insulting the intelligence of the players group....while still trying to indicate that a "reasonable" cap level might be usable.... and Melrose road the fence, obviously not knowing where his next meal ticket was coming from, trying not to anger either side too much, but then successfully alientating both.....

It was obvious at least to me, from the editorial tone, that there was only modestly disguised glee from the regulars on ESPN, that they might have seen the last of hockey for the forseeable future. This is perfectly in tune with the general attitude towards hockey, espoused by all the networks in the last years...where the non hockey announcers always seemed to have a smirk on their faces when talking about hockey...like they were party to some private joke, and that the sport was an insult to their journalistic endeavors.

I swear there has been a determined effort by the majority of television media to run hockey off the air.

[kosydar 0]

Its pretty ironic, my season was ended prematurely today, too.

[ktang 34]

Its pretty ironic, my season was ended prematurely today, too.

Kosydar: If your season ended because of injury: hope you feel and get better quickly. Too bad there is no pro hockey to watch in NA.

Back to the NHL lockout: when upper-level pro hockey returns to North America, I would expect that some of the currently weaker NHL teams would be gone unless there is revenue sharing.

Perhaps the NHL expanded too quickly, leading to dilution of the talent and necessitating the boring defensive games, leading to fewer fans, leading to much less TV revenue, leading to losses for the NHL, leading to this lockout?

NBA expansion worked because most people in the US have played basketball and understand better, and because basketball is easier to televise. However, it bombed in Vancouver because not as many people play basketball.

Bettman was hired by the NHL owners to follow the same game plan for hockey. He did, and it worked at first, with Fox and then ESPN / ABC trying to "get in on the ground floor" of a potentially expanding sport. This led to the spiraling player salaries, and the star players in the NHLPA starting to consider themselves as top-tier pro athletes.

But because hockey is more difficult to televise and most North Americans haven't played hockey (and can't appreciate the skill that they see in the games), hockey has not been as successful as the NBA or NFL in getting TV revenues. The truth eventually came out (i.e. Fox and ESPN / ABC lost money on hockey), and hockey is not currently a top-tier ratings draw in the United States.

So, now there are the star players in the NHLPA who still consider themselves to be top-tier pro athletes and want to be paid as such in a non-top-tier sport without the TV revenues that could pay for their current level of salaries.

This was the owners' fault for misreading the market for pro hockey in the United States and expanding too quickly. Now they realize that the league is broken and need to control costs with a salary cap that the NHLPA can't agree to because it is currently not in the best interests of the players.

These kinds of clashes always happen when an industry changes.

Loosely quoting Bill Watters from Rogers Sportsnet (Canadian cable): for the next CBA negotiations, everything should be resolved 4 months before the CBA expires. If a new CBA has not been agreed to by both sides by 1 month before the expiry of the CBA, a neutral arbitrator should be appointed to cobble together a CBA.

[MDE3 0]

I hear what you are saying, and that is kind of an accepted explanation, for the media demise of the sport. However hockey was a pretty hot item 10 years ago, and ratings were generally ok too...I think the demise may not just be as much a ratings issue as we are led to believe, but in fact has as much to do with the game mechanics, where stoppages are less freqent that any other major pro sport, so the opportunity to fill these stoppages with paid advertizing are the less frequent than with the other major sports.

There are two issues with earnings from television air time...the amount you can charge per slot, and the number of slots you can sell per event.....While ratings will certainly impact the first issue, it's really the event mechanics which control the second one. It's tough to have frequent 30 second to 60 second stoppages in the middle of a hockey period, but with football, baseball and basketball, it's been come to be accepted during changes of possession, or any other minor stoppage in play where even a 15 second slot can be inserted(and recently much more than that).

The impact on this kind of stoppage in play would more seriously impact momentum in hockey than other sports, and the natural flow of the game dictates less total stoppages in play(one of the reasons no touch icing has never been instituted in the NHL....networks want these time slots). The irony is that the more stoppages in play you allow in a hockey game, the less interest in the game from it's fans...so it's a sport with a real "downside" from a media sales perspective. If you increase the advertizing slots, you lose ratings, if you do not, you lose sales slots...compared to other pro sports. My ranting and raving about the media in my earlier post, was not just venting..there are valid reasons (from a media viewpoint) as to why the networks would not mind to see hockey dissapear.

Advertizing sold during breaks between periods cannot make up the difference entirely, because these time slots are less valuable than slots sold during the game. This because it is well known that many viewers change channels during the intermissions, so the "spot" ratings drop during these between period intervals.

[Jim Bob 0]

Also to add why both should go...They should have been working on this since September.  Absolutely no excuse not to be.

As soon as both sides came up with firm stances that were in direct conflict with what the other side wanted there was no way to avoid a lengthy work stoppage.

Talking in September wouldn't have amounted to anything because neither side would have felt the economic pressure to cave on their "no cap" or "cap" stance.

The problem wasn't that they weren't talking in September. The problem is that each side staked out a position that left no room for a true give and take negotiation.

And that is where both Goodenow and Bettman failed those that they are leading, the game, and the fans.

[DrMolotov 0]

I think this says it all... from http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/20.../nhl050208.html

"I was resigned to the fact there wouldn't be a season way back in the summer time," Michael Peca, captain of the New York Islanders, said. "It was obvious what was going to happen throughout the negotiations, where both sides staked their claims early on what was going to be acceptable and what wasn't going to be acceptable.

"And you kind of knew where it was going to go from that point."

Don't you just love being played.

[Jackal3688 0]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1987595

Well heres a story saying that the "drop dead" date is going to be next tuesday... Hopefully not, but its not out of the question.

[Chadd 916]

NHLPA just rejected another offer. From what I believe, it was very similar to the one the NHL proposed last week. But I am sure some will find differences and crucify the NHLPA for not accepting..sigh

Also, Bettman has called for a press conferance at 630 tonight.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=114287

I don't blame them for turning it down.

[Dangles 0]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/20...kout050209.html

Here's another link to the story. They've mutually agreed on a "drop dead date"

[JGraz15 53]

I think the deal seemed pretty fair. It doesn't start as a salary cap. At the same time, it turns into one if the owners don't control their spending, which isn't exactly the players fault

They all suck...

[Eazy_b97 1]

There are 4 triggers that make it goto the NHL's last purposal.

1. 3 teams over 42 mill

2. avg salary over 55% of NHL revenue

3. 33% gap between bottom 3 and top 3 teams

4. Avg team salary over $36 mill (and change)

The triggers are meant to keep them in the EXACT same guidelines as the proposal the NHL wants to go to. I think it was a terrible proposal, right off the bat with the 24% rollback, there already 3 teams over 42 mill and it gaurantee's that the NHL would have their last proposal into place almost immediately.

[Flyerguy91 0]

im so pissed at them that i dont even want a season anymore

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH