I rarely do this, but four tweets nicely sum up the news breaking this afternoon, so let’s have a gander:

Guh. Not good news within.

Check out the column by LeBrun – it’s tough for players to know what’s legit and what’s not right now. This is getting ugly.

Comments (5)

  1. This is what the league thinks is positive PR.

  2. That’s really superficial commentary. The numbers in the current NHL proposal assume revenue from an 82 game schedule this year. Clearly the NHL is not willing to commit to that past today, and they were very clear about that at the time of the offer. Of course the offer comes off the table.

    Without an 82 game season, the financial assumptions change. Does it put the players or the owners in a better position? Frankly, the owners. Their expenses plummet when there are no games. They will rent out the arenas, cancel the charters, cancel the hotel rooms, and not pay salaries. The players? Last I checked, their expenses stay the same (or get worse).

  3. Yes their expenses decrease (to a degree) but there are also no beer sales, no parking revenue, no jersey sales, and they will be refunding ticket holder’s money now that real games are cancelled. Plus, cancelling the games piecemeal like this, good luck renting the arenas out on short notice. Maybe for a couple of dates, but they’ll eat most of that expense. Players can/will continue to just go to Europe to play.

    • To a degree? At a minimum (assuming a money-losing team), %57 of their expenses are player salaries. Those are gone. Paying 20-30guys on %50-%80 salary isn’t that big a deal. A company is way better prepared to handle this than an individual.
      I have no doubt that the owners could handily survive a year or even two with no hockey. A few teams (I’m looking at you Phoenix), would fail, but the rest of the owners would likely be very happy to see that happen – they are just an expense, and if they fail, they just get to sell another franchise license, one that requires less revenue sharing.

      The players are over-playing their hand. Just like players unions almost always do. They never learn.

  4. Sure, the owners could survive. But let’s not make out like they can just go about their business and think they aren’t still paying significant overhead. The Islanders will still have to pay 14 million on their lease, and it’s probably safe to say they are on the low end compared to teams around the league with much more modern venues. Take teams such as Washington or Florida, they are not only paying lease money on empty buildings but also for practice complexes (specifically, Kettler Iceplex in Washington and Saveology Iceplex in Coral Springs). Also consider that league’s brand has already been affected as it pertains to their marketing value. This study shows that, as of the first day of game cancellations, it has lost about 1/4th of its value to marketers since the same study was conducted this time last year. That’s hitting owners right where it hurts, in advertising dollars.


    And are the owners really willing to damage their brand to this extent?

    Personally i like that these “free market” corporate D-bags are getting a taste of their own medicine as their stars take their globally marketable talent elsewhere. That’s the thing, the players have alternative leagues to play in. The owners can try scabs, but that will backfire horribly for them just as it did for the NFL when they tried it. Public outrage broke the NFL and got them to cave to the ref union. And the NHL has far less currency to play with in this regard. The demand for the NHL is elastic as it pertains to the NHL.

    Players also are still getting paid their escrow money from the last CBA in addition to various other monies.


    Players will also be receiving about 10K per month for an unspecified period of time as part of an NHLPA fund (seems they knew Gary was going to lock them out and prepared accordingly).


    The players will be fine I think. And unlike their NFL/NBA/MLB counterparts, they seem to be a fiscally responsible bunch. None of them have 10 different baby mamas, a penchant for bling and a car for every day of the week, mansions, or high-overhead life styles in general.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *