No NHL at the Olympics / Toronto VS Washington - Stadium Series

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well they will be magnitudes higher than if the NHL attended no matter what they are.

Over the two weeks sure... but if we're comparing 82 games to 82 games?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

They don't want to destroy the industry. It's more of the typical Union "us against them" mentality where they feel they are always being screwed by the owners and deserve more. Conversely owners try their best to keep as much money in their pockets as possible.

I think this really comes down to how disruptive are the olympics? The players want to go so what do the owners really lose by letting them go? There is no reduction in games played, so no revenue lost there. An argument could be made that the compressed schedule creates a greater risk for injury, but that risk affects both sides. It will simply be used as a bargaining chip by the owners to get some concessions from the PA in the next round of bargaining. If they simply give it to the players without getting anything significant, they lose that leverage, and frankly the league doesn't have very many other options to leverage over the players besides cancelling a season so they will use whatever else they can.

[GirlySports]

olympic soccer isn't even under-23 best on best. Teams do not have to release players for it. Germany probably fielded their under-23 E team.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

Over the two weeks sure... but if we're comparing 82 games to 82 games?

Im not sure why it would go down because of the Olympics?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think this really comes down to how disruptive are the olympics? The players want to go so what do the owners really lose by letting them go? There is no reduction in games played, so no revenue lost there. An argument could be made that the compressed schedule creates a greater risk for injury, but that risk affects both sides. It will simply be used as a bargaining chip by the owners to get some concessions from the PA in the next round of bargaining. If they simply give it to the players without getting anything significant, they lose that leverage, and frankly the league doesn't have very many other options to leverage over the players besides cancelling a season so they will use whatever else they can.

Not even close to being the same thing.

Owners still have to pay those contracts regardless. What risk does the player take?

[powderjunkie]

I'd be curious how ratings and to a lesser extent, attendance play out for the NHL during the Olympics. More of an issue for their broadcast partners...I wonder if NBC will even air any NHL hockey during that period.

I know time zones are different, and it's not necessarily going to affect season ticket holders as much, but I'd rather stay at home and watch the quadrennially scarce product than buy a walkup NHL ticket.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im not sure why it would go down because of the Olympics?

Because people might watch that instead of hockey?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think this really comes down to how disruptive are the olympics? The players want to go so what do the owners really lose by letting them go? There is no reduction in games played, so no revenue lost there. An argument could be made that the compressed schedule creates a greater risk for injury, but that risk affects both sides. It will simply be used as a bargaining chip by the owners to get some concessions from the PA in the next round of bargaining. If they simply give it to the players without getting anything significant, they lose that leverage, and frankly the league doesn't have very many other options to leverage over the players besides cancelling a season so they will use whatever else they can.

Um. No.

The owners lose because they're not just keeping on keeping on. The enterprise that earns them money is halted.

No.

In the past the IIHF/IOC deal has been that the NHL takes a back-seat and lets their players go the Olympics.

Thats a terrible deal.

In reciprocation the IIHF/IOC pay the insurance premiums and travel costs for this favour in exchange for 'Growing the Game.'

This time the IIHF/IOC told the NHL to: Pay the insurance premiums, pay the travel and accommodation costs, halt the league schedule (that makes them money) and take the risks and in exchange they would get.....

What?

Yeah. I'd tell them to go to hell.

Then they changed their minds and went back to the original also terrible deal.

And the players cared about the Olympics so much that they used it as a bargaining chip during the CBA negotiations!

Wait...what? They didnt? Well then, it must not be all that important to them.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because people might watch that instead of hockey?

Hockey fans are going to watch the Olympics over NHL games?

Yeah....no.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not even close to being the same thing.

Owners still have to pay those contracts regardless. What risk does the player take?

The players risk injury which could impact their career and/or future contracts. In other words, both sides take a financial risk.

[transplant99]

Good lord.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hockey fans are going to watch the Olympics over NHL games?

Yeah....no.

Are you for real? Do you not consider it plausible that a casual NHL fan who watches games occasionally wouldn't consider watching the Olympics instead? Using flames fans as an example. If we didn't have NHL players at the 2014 olympics do you not think some people still would have chosen to tune in to that rather than watch the Iginla-less Flames lose games on a nightly basis at the start of a rebuild?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Um. No.

The owners lose because they're not just keeping on keeping on. The enterprise that earns them money is halted.

It is paused, the same way it is paused in the offseason. They still play the same number of games, sell the same number of available tickets and so on.

No.

In the past the IIHF/IOC deal has been that the NHL takes a back-seat and lets their players go the Olympics.

Thats a terrible deal.

In reciprocation the IIHF/IOC pay the insurance premiums and travel costs for this favour in exchange for 'Growing the Game.'

This time the IIHF/IOC told the NHL to: Pay the insurance premiums, pay the travel and accommodation costs, halt the league schedule (that makes them money) and take the risks and in exchange they would get.....

What?

Yeah. I'd tell them to go to hell.

Then they changed their minds and went back to the original also terrible deal.

And the players cared about the Olympics so much that they used it as a bargaining chip during the CBA negotiations!

Wait...what? They didnt? Well then, it must not be all that important to them.

The league offered an extension of the CBA with the players being able to participate at olympics, so the league can't be that opposed to the deal with the IIHF(which I agree is terrible) or the "impact" the break it has on their season. It also clearly indicates that the league is well aware that participating at the Olympics is important to the players. Now the league doesn't want the players going and are using those same excuses, the real reason is they are trying to avoid making any concession to the PA in the next CBA.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you for real? Do you not consider it plausible that a casual NHL fan who watches games occasionally wouldn't consider watching the Olympics instead? Using flames fans as an example. If we didn't have NHL players at the 2014 olympics do you not think some people still would have chosen to tune in to that rather than watch the Iginla-less Flames lose games on a nightly basis at the start of a rebuild?

I'd still watch NHL games over the now Spengler cup quality Olympics. I'm not waking up at 3AM to watch it anymore.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hockey fans are going to watch the Olympics over NHL games?

Yeah....no.

All in all, the NHL regular season is big pile of garbage. Does anybody really think that it takes over 1200 games to figure out who the best 16 teams are? Or is it pretty much just one big cash grab?

Would I watch Olympics over regular season NHL games? Hell yeah. I would rather watch reruns of Seinfeld than most regular season NHL games.

NHL playoffs are a different story. Whether they do Olympics or not, the NHL needs to figure out a way to give the fans more of the awesome hockey and less filler.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hockey fans are going to watch the Olympics over NHL games?

Yeah....no.

I think they will. I will, and I'm a hockey fan. Unless it's a big game, I'd watch Olympic short track speed skating over a February game against the Coyotes or whoever.

I'd watch a Flames exhibition game (hell, maybe even a practice if they broadcast it) over most sports any other time of the year, but the Olympics are different and I get hooked on all sorts of weird sports that I'd never watch otherwise.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

I'd still watch NHL games over the now Spengler cup quality Olympics. I'm not waking up at 3AM to watch it anymore.

I wouldn't either, this isn't about NHL hockey vs non-NHL Olympic hockey. The olympics isn't just hockey, I don't really follow bobsled or skiing but I will watch it during the Olympics. When the Olympics are in a different time zone there are still typically events being shown at any time of the day, whether it be live or reruns.

[iggy_oi]

To be honest an underdog team Canada might be more exciting to watch than a team that is a perennial favourite.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It is paused, the same way it is paused in the offseason. They still play the same number of games, sell the same number of available tickets and so on.

You can't say that. In Calgary or Toronto or Winnipeg, they probably sell the same number of tickets. In many American markets though, they take three weeks off right at a time when the NHL and NBA are the only games in town and stuff more games at times when teams are competing against NCAA football and basketball. For a team like Carolina, which drew 21% more fans in February than it did November last year, that can mean thousands of tickets.

The league offered an extension of the CBA with the players being able to participate at olympics, so the league can't be that opposed to the deal with the IIHF(which I agree is terrible) or the "impact" the break it has on their season. It also clearly indicates that the league is well aware that participating at the Olympics is important to the players. Now the league doesn't want the players going and are using those same excuses, the real reason is they are trying to avoid making any concession to the PA in the next CBA.

FWIW, the tl;dr of the timeline is that the NHL has made it clear it disliked its deal with the the IOC since even before the Vancouver Games, even with the IOC/IIHF paying much of the insurance. It didn't want to go to Sochi, but the union and league made a side agreement during the last CBA talks to go there. The IOC then decided to make the deal worse by dropping the insurance payments. The IIHF, to its credit, agreed to pick that back up, but that just put us back to the same bad deal.

The NHL's offer to the players was basically an olive branch. The owners don't want to go and are clearly annoyed by the IOC's intransigence, but the players want to participate. So the league stepped forward and made an offer. It was the union, as Don Fehr led unions are prone to do, that refused to even negotiate. I get that you are a union sycophant, but this is entirely on the players. The NHL was willing to sit down and talk. The NHLPA was not.

[Erick Estrada]

Americans as a whole barely care about the winter Olympics. When they tune in large numbers it's usually only to watch the figure skating.