[News] NHL will not participate in 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Itse

The 2016 World Cup of hockey was probably the first international hockey tournament I completely skipped in 30 years, even though they had the whole season before it to sell me on that thing. The NHL never got me interested, I didn't end up watching it and I've never felt like I missed out on something.

The second you put a young gun team together - which was fun to watch - you immediately take out the passion for the North American fan. Winner and losing matters less - because you can excuse every loss due to a McDavid, Matthews or Gaudreau being missing from the team.

It turns it from a nail biting experience for Canadian and American fans to a really well played exhibition tournament.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

^ The NHL already sold the pre-season for good money. $5.6 billion from Rogers alone.



You're attempting to use an emotional appeal as a counter to a hard business decision. The number of people that watched the final in Sochi is, frankly, irrelevant, because none of that went toward the NHL's business. Even in terms of residual effects, the league by now has an excellent idea on how much Olympic hype impacts ratings for its own games, and for how long. It knows what impact it has on merchandise sales and ticket sales and all the rest.

And the NHL thinks the deal, as structured, is a bad one. That gives us an indication of what the direct impacts for the NHL are.

Agree with your second paragraph but not sure the first paragraph is irrelevant to the NHL's decision. As we see in the arena debate - its about the NHL getting what it feels it deserves rather than losing or making money on going. The NHL is willing to throw away a million if it think it should get two.

[s_procee]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Agree with your second paragraph but not sure the first paragraph is irrelevant to the NHL's decision. As we see in the arena debate - its about the NHL getting what it feels it deserves rather than losing or making money on going. The NHL is willing to throw away a million if it think it should get two.

I didn't watch either for the same reasoning. if you can't even put together the team you want then whats the point.

[sharkov]

If anything, NHL players won by not going. They can stay faraway from that putrid country and repulsive culture in February

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by sharkov

If anything, NHL players won by not going. They can stay faraway from that putrid country and repulsive culture in February

What's wrong with South Korea?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

What's wrong with South Korea?

Like Calgary, their biggest problem is the people to the north.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not sure I'm following you.

They wouldnt get any additional benefit or gain other than 3 more years of NHL Product uninterrupted by a Labour Dispute? Thats a benefit and a gain.

Do you trade 2 weeks of NHL play for that? Hell yeah you do.

I just don't think it's a good move by the league from a negotiation leverage perspective. They've put themselves in a position where they have unintentionally devalued a big bargaining chip. They knew a lot of players wanted to participate, now those players know those costs aren't something that the owners are willing to pay. Even though the players want to participate it wouldn't surprise me if they turned this around on the owners at the table and asked why if the owners are willing to take one risk why won't they take another arguably less risky one instead.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I just don't think it's a good move by the league from a negotiation leverage perspective. They've put themselves in a position where they have unintentionally devalued a big bargaining chip. They knew a lot of players wanted to participate, now those players know those costs aren't something that the owners are willing to pay. Even though the players want to participate it wouldn't surprise me if they turned this around on the owners at the table and asked why if the owners are willing to take one risk why won't they take another arguably less risky one instead.

The owners don't need bargaining chips...its simple

Billionaires with multiple income streams Vs. Millionaires who know how to hockey. Half the teams don't even make money for Christ sake

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

The owners don't need bargaining chips...its simple

Billionaires with multiple income streams Vs. Millionaires who know how to hockey. Half the teams don't even make money for Christ sake

You don't think the millionaire players ever win against the billionaire owners? Quick history lesson: Those "millionaires who know how to hockey" were at one point simply referred to as those "guys who know how to hockey". They weren't simply handed things like guaranteed multi-year contracts worth millions of dollars.

[calgaryblood]

Yeah NHLers have a pretty good cba compared to other leagues. Even better than the NFL.

[Resolute 14]

And on the note of the CBA, fun fact: the NHLPA used to point to Major League Baseball as an argument on why a salary cap wasn't needed. This year, MLB salaries came in at around 43% of MLB revenues. So it would now, in fact, be the MLBPA that would benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if they were to achieve a 50% linked cap like the NHLPA has.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And on the note of the CBA, fun fact: the NHLPA used to point to Major League Baseball as an argument on why a salary cap wasn't needed. This year, MLB salaries came in at around 43% of MLB revenues. So it would now, in fact, be the MLBPA that would benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if they were to achieve a 50% linked cap like the NHLPA has.

Because MLB owners aren't drunken idiots. They negotiate. It could take months. Not "July 1st"

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because MLB owners aren't drunken idiots. They negotiate. It could take months. Not "July 1st"

I don't follow baseball very closely but don't MLB players also not hit UFA until much later in their careers?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don't follow baseball very closely but don't MLB players also not hit UFA until much later in their careers?

There are many conditions and exceptions but the simple answer is 6 years of service on the 40 man roster.

[GGG]

The big reason is that the TV deal for baseball can fund the teams so you don't need gate revenues to make money so you don't ever need to win.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Yeah NHLers have a pretty good cba compared to other leagues. Even better than the NFL.

The NFL union was pretty much broken in their last dispute.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

What's wrong with South Korea?

He probably thought the thread said "Pyongyang"

[Mathgod]

It's hard to imagine what it must be like to be an athlete training your whole life for a shot at competing at the Olympics, but I imagine that if I were an athlete invited to these particular Olympics I would decline to go. Who knows what KJU might do...

[s_procee]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

It's hard to imagine what it must be like to be an athlete training your whole life for a shot at competing at the Olympics, but I imagine that if I were an athlete invited to these particular Olympics I would decline to go. Who knows what KJU might do...

I think if you were an amateur athlete, you would go no matter what. I can't imagine training my whole life then not going.

[sureLoss]

NBC says screw you to NHL: will not show any NHL games on any NBC platform during the Olympics

http://nypost.com/2017/09/23/nhls-de...embarrassment/

The NHL is refusing to send its athletes to the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, because the league does not want to go dark for nearly three mid-winter weeks. But you know that by now.

What you probably are not aware of, however, is the NHL nevertheless will go dark across all NBC platforms between Feb. 7-26, during the Games. Last season, NBC and NBCSN combined to telecast 20 NHL games over the comparable period.

This is a network decision that several industry sources in touch with Slap Shots over the past two weeks interpret as nothing less than the league’s U.S. national television rights-holder giving a symbolic middle finger to Gary Bettman and the Board of Governors for withholding its players from one of NBC’s most important properties.

The gap between the above-cited dates did exist in the telecast schedule released by NBC in July. But it had been assumed the network would announce added games at a later date. That is certainly the premise under which the NHL was operating, as you learn in a moment.

But not so. NBC Sports Group VP of communications Chris McCloskey wrote in an email exchange that the agreement with the league allows the network to add games but that, “As of now, there are no changes.”