PDA

View Full Version : N.H.L. looses major sponsor



Scout
06-01-2005, 11:17 AM
ESPN said it has stopped negotiations with the NHL and that the sport isn't worth half of the $60 million rights fee the cable network agreed to pay last October, even if a new labor contract is reached and play resumes in October. The N.H.L. is without a national cable television partner for the first time since the late 1970's. The league has received $600 million over five years under it's contract with ESPN and ABC. If the strike does end, ESPN has stated it may renegotiate the contract but for a modest fee.

Well just another shot in the foot for the N.H.L. I never missed it last year but it is having an effect on junior hockey. They haven't even paid draft fee's to the junior teams from last year. My concern is the draft money. Small market teams depend on this money and without it have to try harder to stay afloat. Time for Goodenough and Bettman to step down as the hate they have for each other is hurting all hockey. I can't see the N.H.L. going this year either by all accounts being reported. The power struggle between these two is stupid.

Scout

C.F
06-01-2005, 04:29 PM
The NHL blows it once again.

Fox had a great offer before, hopefully they still have it on the table.

rinkrat
06-01-2005, 05:25 PM
Ok the players didn't F-up the business,the players rolled back salaries 24%,they agreed to a cap.What else do the owners want?Its not enough to win,the owners want to win 30-0...
I couldn't care less about the greedy owners,I'll keep going to the affordable,exciting WHL games.

C.F
06-01-2005, 05:33 PM
the n.h.l and n.h.l.p.a blow it . cant say the players are looking like angels.
The players aren't the ones that work out TV contracts.

I'd also like to know where I said the players are angels. Perhaps you should read my post, and the topic for that matter.

Stay-Puft
06-01-2005, 05:38 PM
I think this plays into the owner's side of the negotiation. Sport has little interest in "mainstream" US, ESPN was huge for exposure in US, revenue pot that both have been talking about sharing is now $60 million less (2 teams worth), more sponsers are sure to follow. Better get something done now before the revenue pot loses Ford (which has been reported).

The_Vulk
06-03-2005, 05:15 PM
Prime Time Sports had an interesting guest not that long ago.

It was a VP from Fox-television, IIFC.

It seems that there is more to regional broadcasts (ratings) than there is for nationally shown games.

Just think of the recent Shaw-regional WHL games., if you will.

Sure, there are fans whom would want to see games of other teams when their's is not playing. But the fan base for that is not yet strong enough in the States to warrent the rights fees that was.

Hopefully, they can still get a 'game of the week' shown nationally.

But until then, build up the regional fan base (which is something the NHL has to do anyway, once the lockout ends.)

RunTheGoalie
06-05-2005, 10:39 AM
Ok the players didn't F-up the business,the players rolled back salaries 24%,they agreed to a cap.What else do the owners want?Its not enough to win,the owners want to win 30-0...
I couldn't care less about the greedy owners,I'll keep going to the affordable,exciting WHL games.

The players agreed to rollback salaries 24%, knowing full well that they would get it back instantly. The initial rollback offer contained no significant controls on player salaries, and left virtually every single loophole the union has exploited wide open. From that worthless offer until about a week before the season was cancelled, the union completely refused to negotiate, instead choosing to simply wait for the owners to collapse.

When they didn't collapse, then the NHLPA went into "oh ****" mode, and caved on a cap. However, even then they refused to negotiate in good faith, demanding a cap that would have been greater than 100% of league revenues. Finally, a month after the season was cancelled, the union conceeded to linkage, and now, SIX YEARS after the NHL first approached the union, they have negotiated, and apparently agreed on, a definition of revenue.

Dont kid yourself. The players have stalled this process since 1999. They deserve as much blame as anybody for this situation.

loudi94
06-06-2005, 07:28 AM
I think the center ice package on satellite and cable is infinitely more important than ESPN. People want to watch their favourite team play first. Watching Nashville vs. Anaheim doesn't cut it unless you root for one of those teams. Regional games are where tv needs to focus on to get back their base of fans before launching into nationally televised games in the States.

rinkrat
06-06-2005, 12:36 PM
The players agreed to rollback salaries 24%, knowing full well that they would get it back instantly.

Please explain.Is it because the owners cannot control themselves? Pretty scary for a succesful business person not to be able to control his spending.
I suppose you are naieve enough to think that ticket prices are linked to player salaries? :groovy: LOL Please...

The_Vulk
06-06-2005, 05:13 PM
The original offer the PA gave with the 24% rollback, it was determeined that within 24 months, the players wages would be back up to the level they were BEFORE the rollback.

And yes, the owners/GM can't control themselves.

The need for the league to be competative in all its markets (like the NFL) makes every team having a chance to win each year. It makes for exciting sports.

Not like the MLB, where only a few teams are expected to win each year and the rest just cannon fodder.


Just look at the success at the WHL (and the entire CHL) level.

The teams are equal in the fact that each and every year, fans can expect their teams to be competative/have a chance to win it all. (with the odd team in rebuilding mode, of course, but they are still in most game.)

rinkrat
06-06-2005, 05:27 PM
The original offer the PA gave with the 24% rollback, it was determeined that within 24 months, the players wages would be back up to the level they were BEFORE the rollback.

Who determined this,Mr.Bettman? I think revenue sharing would solve alot of the problems.Funny,though the owners don't trust each other,yet they expect the players to trust the owners.Hmmmm :skeptical

The_Vulk
06-06-2005, 06:04 PM
Hockey analysist (those on Hockey Central) said as much.

Which I am sure the NHL, when they looked over the proposal, say just as much.

rinkrat
06-06-2005, 07:38 PM
Hockey analysist (those on Hockey Central)
So I should take John Garretts viewpoint as gospel? When did he study economics? Between Fredericton and Hartford? :D