2018 Pyeongchang - Winter Olympics

[Jacquie]

And another point of view:

I would suggest reading the tweets made by @JohnAtkinPR regarding how it works for soccer.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jacquie

[Jimmy Pop]

Naylor is bang on.

[bearpants]

I think most people are aware of the NHL's position... and understand why they would make that choice... but I think it comes across like the NHL put no effort into working out a deal with IOC... 

[The Unknown Poster]

28 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The players have bent over and taken it from the owners in the past 2 CBA negotiations, at this point it's just Bettman looking for another round of bending them over a barrel and showing them the 50 states. Everyone except the NHL owners wants NHL players in the olympics. Fans want it, players want it, IIHF wants it, IOC wants it, and yeah they're all self serving rich assholes but the owners are the worst of the bunch in this situation. Do something for the fans for a change, try and grow the game globally. You have a chance to get all eyes on the game of hockey and they're not doing it cause why? They are short sighted and can't bear to tinker with their own schedule. 

Yes, everyone wants it.  But why should the owners allow it for nothing in return?  The fact everyone wants it is reason enough the owners should use it for leverage.  extending the current CBA was not an unreasonable request.  Im not sure what hill the players want to die on during the next CBA negotiations but they arent likely to win that one either.  They hate escrow but Im not sure how else you manage a system based on league revenue.  Just pay the players full salary and then send them an invoice at the end of the season?  Fat chance.

And if I understand it correctly, the CBA was for ten years with an opt-out clause after the 8th year.  So the NHL asking for a three year extension amounts to extending it (factoring in the opt out) to one year longer than the full agreement.  In a National Post story I read, contract length was said to NOT be a concern of the players.  But it is now?

These players are heeling on the owners.  Okay, well the owners made an offer.  Where is the players' offer?  If the owners pitched an idea that was NOT in the CBA, they'd need the PA to sign off on it.  The players now want something NOT in the CBA and they are bent out of shape because the owners want to negotiate?

Players really have no clue.

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, bearpants said:

I think most people are aware of the NHL's position... and understand why they would make that choice... but I think it comes across like the NHL put no effort into working out a deal with IOC... 

NHL made a deal with IOC (or rather, the IIHF).  They wanted someone else to pay the insurance costs which was agreed to.  Its the players that dont want to negotiate.  The NHL made an offer, the PA declined and that was it.  Players have no one to blame but themselves.

Great point by Naylor - ask the PA if they are willing to give up pay for any games injured and compensate their home teams for loss of revenue attributed to not having an injured star player available.  The PA should go to the IOC and ask them to pay a percentage of the broadcast money to compensate the NHL teams.  Presumably, the IOC stands to gain higher broadcast rights fees if the NHL players play then if they dont.  The NHL should get a percentage of that increase.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

1 hour ago, sweep the leg said:

I prefer the Winter Olympics over the summer games.

Counter argument...beach volleyball

[Atomic]

11 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Counter argument...beach volleyball

[kelownabomberfan]

8 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Counter argument...beach volleyball

Counter counter argument - women's beach volleyball...

[kelownabomberfan]

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

or if that's what turns your crank, men's beach volleyball.

[JCon]

40 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

And another point of view:

I would suggest reading the tweets made by @JohnAtkinPR regarding how it works for soccer.

Tweet by tweet

1. The reward is the increased international attention on your players and your league. I bet there is tons of evidence to show how much the game has grown internationally since the NHL players started going. I would like to see what analysis has been done.

2. IOC makes a ton of money off the hockey in the Olympics but nowhere near "billions". The IOC should be picking up the insurance costs, not the IIHF. Nothing to do with the players, who are not getting rich off the Olympics.

3. I like to see some analysis on whether or not the game has grown. Not sure why the NHL would think that preseason game would hold more value than the Olympics?

4. Yes, but the NHL can still profit from the exposure.

5. That's why there's insurance. Not sure what Nails' point is here?

6. Again, insurance. And the idea that you're growing the game.

7. Yes, and teams cannot hold players back unless they are injured. So, your top players are off several times a year to train and play with the international teams. The leagues take weeks off during the season while international games are played. Want that, NHL?

 

As usual, Naylor tells half a story.

Edited April 4, 2017 by JCon

[The Unknown Poster]

@jcon - the idea the NHL benefits from increased international exposure is sort of a sense of 'well they should' but do they?  This is a league that still has trouble gaining a foothold in the US, let alone Asia.  Im not sure there is any real sense that South Korea could become a hockey hotbed.  China is different because it's been so closed off and has such an enormous population that you dont need much of an in-road to profit.

So, explaining to the NHL that they will benefit in an in-direct way that will be good down the road is a tough pill to swallow.  And since revenue is split 50/50, any gain the owners get, the players share in.  So again, gain for the players, not so much for the owners.

A player being injured has insurance to protect the team from the salary costs.  But how are they reimbursed for a lost season due to an injury to a superstar player?  Or the increased wear & tear on a team with multiple Olympians playing a tournament of that quality in February?  Would you, as a fan, give up a Stanley Cup to watch a few of your players play in the Olympics?  Its possible...and its the risk the owners dont want to take.

To me its pretty cut and dried.  Players want to go but dont want to concede anything.  Owners are willing to take the risk and shut down their league for 3 weeks at a critical time in the season...if they get some concession.  They're not even asking for money.

The players refused to negotiate or discuss and now whine about "greedy" owners who take the hit and the risk if they alow this for no tangible benefit.  The players get the experience of playing plus the pontetial endorsements etc AND are insured so if they are hurt they still get paid.  And they wont negotiate??  Who's the greedy ones here?

Players sign contracts to play in the NHL.  They dont get to go play for someone else whenever they feel like it.  If they want to, they are free to not sign with an NHL team when their contract is up.  They want it both ways.  They want all the benefit. 

Players should pull up their big boy pants and go make a deal with the NHL.  The PA always whines about how they are being taken advantage of.  Well, shoe's on the other foot and they wont negotiate.

[Goalie]

Would non hockey fans tune in to watch hockey at the Olympics?  I dunno about that. Increased international exposure?  Or just hockey fans from Finland Sweden Canada USA etc? I dunno. Why would Joey zho zho zhabadoo from Korea care? Cuz Korea China Japan and 90 percent of the world wouldn't be represented in this tournament anyways. 

I'd love for them to go... but I could understand why they might not. I say might Cuz I think fan pressure might Win out In the end but.. only a handful maybe 8 countries would be represented 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Goalie

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Goalie said:

Would non hockey fans tune in to watch hockey at the Olympics?  I dunno about that. Increased international exposure?  Or just hockey fans from Finland Sweden Canada USA etc? I dunno. Why would Joey zho zho zhabadoo from Korea care? 

He wouldnt.  And thats why the NHL wont go for the "exposure" that means nothing.  And these players and their supporters saying "the NHL gets the benefit of exposure", no they share it 50/50.  So consider that "benefit" a wash.  What else do the owners get?  Nothing.  Risk.  That's it. 

Players are uninformed and entitled.

[JCon]

Just now, Goalie said:

Would non hockey fans tune in to watch hockey at the Olympics?  I dunno about that. Increased international exposure?  Or just hockey fans from Finland Sweden Canada USA etc? I dunno. Why would Joey zho zho zhabadoo from Korea care? 

Would non-track and field fans watch track and field because it's the Olympics? Yes, I think so. People watch all sorts of things that they wouldn't normally watch.

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

@jcon - the idea the NHL benefits from increased international exposure is sort of a sense of 'well they should' but do they?  This is a league that still has trouble gaining a foothold in the US, let alone Asia.  Im not sure there is any real sense that South Korea could become a hockey hotbed.  China is different because it's been so closed off and has such an enormous population that you dont need much of an in-road to profit.

I don't think you go to PyeongChang to get South Korean viewers, you go to start making new inroads into China. These games will be on primetime for China and you could hope to gain some momentum there.

[Goalie]

Track n field appeals more to other countries than hockey does to the 8 or so countries represented in the hockey tournament. Track n field is worldwide. Hockey isn't and never will be 

[Goalie]

USA Canada Russia Sweden Finland maybe Denmark or Switzerland.. Slovakia Czech Republic. Is that it? Belarus Latvia maybe ? The other countries around the world just don't care. Germany? Sure. Let's say they would be represented. I just don't see dude in Korea or China giving a crap cuz their country won't be represented 

[JCon]

5 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Track n field appeals more to other countries than hockey does to the 8 or so countries represented in the hockey tournament. Track n field is worldwide. Hockey isn't and never will be 

Point is, people watch all sorts of sports they wouldn't normally watch, or in other words, get exposure to sports they wouldn't normally see.

Sometimes, these sports catch on and grow outside of the Olympics.

[JCon]

4 minutes ago, Goalie said:

USA Canada Russia Sweden Finland maybe Denmark or Switzerland.. Slovakia Czech Republic. Is that it? Belarus Latvia maybe ? The other countries around the world just don't care. Germany? Sure. Let's say they would be represented. I just don't see dude in Korea or China giving a crap cuz their country won't be represented 

NHL is going to China for preseason games. I'm pretty sure that there will be zero Chinese players represented on either of the teams. So, why are they going?

[Goalie]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

NHL is going to China for preseason games. I'm pretty sure that there will be zero Chinese players represented on either of the teams. So, why are they going?

China isn't Korea.  I guarantee NHL will be at the 2022 Olympics in China. 

Korea tho.. there's just no market there 

China Is a lot different 

Vancouver vs LA. It's no coincidence it's those 2 teams. 

NHL makes money going to China. They make nothing going to Korea 

Man sure would suck if scheif Laine or wheeler got hurt tho 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Goalie

[The Unknown Poster]

I will watch events Im not a big fan of because its the Olympics.  So if I watch Track & Field in the Olympics, I dont suddenly become a track & field fan and watch local meets. 

The point with the NHL is different in that its a scenario where its a "big four" sport and being there helps casual fans or fence sitters get to know the players and see them as rock stars so you probably can gain fans from it.  That's the benefit.  But that's not a direct deposit of cash into the owners' pockets.  In intangible and its worthy but you're asking them to make a tangible investment for an intangible return.

And I agree that it begins the push for China.  But China alone is worth more than neither.  Owners want to go to China but they wont fawn over it.  CBA expires before then so this will become a CBA issue.  Owners know players want to go so they will hold it back as a negotiating ploy.  As well they should.  It has value to the players.

But bottom line: the owners arent against going.  They offered to go.  The players said no.  Not the owners.  Players said no, we dont want to discuss going.  Owners offered a comprehensive plan for other tournaments etc with the intent of growing the game.  Players see growing the game as an owner benefit when its a shared benefit.  But players say "what do I get today?"  Just like the owners. 

The superstar players should be the one on the phone to Fehr telling him to make a deal.

[JCon]

19 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

To me its pretty cut and dried.  Players want to go but dont want to concede anything.  Owners are willing to take the risk and shut down their league for 3 weeks at a critical time in the season...if they get some concession.  They're not even asking for money.

The owners want money through extending the CBA. They know they have a great deal and are making a lots of money. Well, everyone except the clubs in wacky places. The players are not benefitting at all financially. Maybe they see a return in 5 to 10 years when they're retired.

[Jimmy Pop]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

NHL is going to China for preseason games. I'm pretty sure that there will be zero Chinese players represented on either of the teams. So, why are they going?

To increase the exposure of the National Hockey League.

 

45 minutes ago, JCon said:

Tweet by tweet

1. The reward is the increased international attention on your players and your league. I bet there is tons of evidence to show how much the game has grown internationally since the NHL players started going. I would like to see what analysis has been done.

2. IOC makes a ton of money off the hockey in the Olympics but nowhere near "billions". The IOC should be picking up the insurance costs, not the IIHF. Nothing to do with the players, who are not getting rich off the Olympics.

3. I like to see some analysis on whether or not the game has grown. Not sure why the NHL would think that preseason game would hold more value than the Olympics?

4. Yes, but the NHL can still profit from the exposure.

5. That's why there's insurance. Not sure what Nails' point is here?

6. Again, insurance. And the idea that you're growing the game.

7. Yes, and teams cannot hold players back unless they are injured. So, your top players are off several times a year to train and play with the international teams. The leagues take weeks off during the season while international games are played. Want that, NHL?

 

As usual, Naylor tells half a story.

Telling half the story is better than making one up.

How does hockey in general, or the NHL more importantly, benefit from Olympic participation?  No one's answering this. That's the problem!! 

[Goalie]

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

The owners want money through extending the CBA. They know they have a great deal and are making a lots of money. Well, everyone except the clubs in wacky places. The players are not benefitting at all financially. Maybe they see a return in 5 to 10 years when they're retired.

Poor players. How can they live on 8 year 50 million dollar contracts 

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

To increase the exposure of the National Hockey League.

 

Telling half the story is better than making one up.

How does hockey in general, or the NHL more importantly, benefit from Olympic participation?  No one's answering this. That's the problem!! 

You're right. I made an overreaching statement. I edited my comments and pulled back but forgot this one. My apologizes.

I would like to see some analysis done.

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

The owners want money through extending the CBA. They know they have a great deal and are making a lots of money. Well, everyone except the clubs in wacky places. The players are not benefitting at all financially. Maybe they see a return in 5 to 10 years when they're retired.

The players arent seeing a benefit to the CBA???  The MILLIONAIRE players?  They get 50% of league revenue.  What would be more fair to the players?