To think that it would have the slightest chance to work, shows how clueless most "pro player" fans are. Why do you think the new wha can't get off the ground? Brutal answer: NO prospects for success. A new league would have no television revenue, limited gate receipts (low ticket prices would be needed to attract fans) no merchandising income and most importantly given the fact most american fans hardly miss hockey a new league would have no identity to attract even ardent hockey fans. One thing to keep in mind: NHL fans root for their TEAMS not individual players. And the fact that most NHL fans have moved on and will patiently wait for the idiocy to end, make the chance of any league generating interest very small. Perhaps the most telling point is the fact that no players of consequence talk of it and even more damning is the fact that no investors are talking up the idea. You have to deal with the fact that ours is a niche sport and the VAST majority of sports fans could not care less if it was gone for good.
Yours is the same reasoning that assumed the players would cave after a few months. It never occurred to the Bettman Bunch that the players might actually accept other offers.
Do you know for a fact that it's not being considered? No, you don't. And there's a very good reason -- because the NHL season has not been cancelled as yet. When it is, not only will the owners have to return all the season ticket money, but all advertiser commitments go out the window (and monies will most likely have to be returned to them as well).
As for a players league, if it does come to pass, you can bet that it won't be the same old watered down, trap-infested game that the Bettman Bunch is trying to push upon the public.
Quote: A new league would have no television revenue, limited gate receipts (low ticket prices would be needed to attract fans) no merchandising income
In other words, they'd be in pretty much the same position as the 'old' league.
Quote: A new league would have no television revenue, limited gate receipts (low ticket prices would be needed to attract fans) no merchandising income
In other words, they'd be in pretty much the same position as the 'old' league.
"One thing to keep in mind: NHL fans root for their TEAMS not individual players."
You're only half right on this....fans DO root for individual players, as well as teams....how do you think all those hockey jerseys with individual player names are sold? Teams are identified by their roster players as well as their name. If what you say was true, teams wouldn't try and sign high profile players in order to increase their own revenues.
Quote: "One thing to keep in mind: NHL fans root for their TEAMS not individual players."
You're only half right on this....fans DO root for individual players, as well as teams....how do you think all those hockey jerseys with individual player names are sold? Teams are identified by their roster players as well as their name. If what you say was true, teams wouldn't try and sign high profile players in order to increase their own revenues.
right on! i can't speak for everyone on here, but i bet most of us are fans of players who might have never worn a ranger jersey, i certainly do. to name a few: yzerman, heatley, thornton, richards, lecavalier, forseberg, sakic, modano. plus my favorite player ever is still adam graves.
as for the topic at hand: i think a player league would work. there would probably only be 6-10 teams and the talent wouldn't be watered down. i've always felt that MOST hockey fans aren't fair-weather fans anyway.
Quote: And GOD said: There will be NO Other League, but Mine.
Forget about it. NHL has been and will continue to be the Official League of Hockey......
TO Players: Render unto Ceasar which is caesar's.
And the Devil said to the owners: Stab each other in the back and drive up prices; blame the players for over-expansion and a diluted product. Install a salary cap and watch the league self-destruct.
Iv'e read the responses but have yet see REAL answers. For example WHERE is the money coming from? The players salaries? Who will televise what most fans will regard as exhibitions? If the long established NHL is a blip on the sports radar screen, who will support a lesser league? Fans do follow certain players Gretsky, Lemieiux etc. But the vast majority of NHL players are interchangable no name muckers and grinders. If you think otherwise you are kidding yourselves. Do you think if Trevor Linden got traded to 90% of the NHL cities anyone other than the most diehard fan would care, much less run out and buy tickets? Of course not. The supreme irony of a players league is that because there won't be tv, merchandising revenue streams the league would have to have COST CERTAINTY to have a hope of lasting a single season. In short the players would look foolish playing under salary restraints while rejecting the same to play in the NHL. If the players were seriously thinking of starting their own league they would be discussing it publicaly as a hammer in any labor talks. Another point is that if the players start a league then the NHL owners merely have to offer more money to players to come back to the NHL under a salary cap system. Don't think for a moment the owners and players both don't doubt that is how it will play out.
The answers I am looking for are questions of finance, not when the players would decide to give the owners every thing they want such as eliminating the need to call an impasse, thus having no concern about can-am labor law. A players league would be so good for the NHL owners I can see them encouraging it. The owners would then be free to impose their financial system, offer players more than they are getting from a revenue less league, thus destroying an ill conceived suicidal venture. Leaving the NHL with a cap system as the only place to play. Do you really think the players would be dumb enough to risk this? In short they would give the owners what they want with no give and take. Again for the millionth time hockey revenues are extremely small and finite, THERE IS NO HUGE FINANCIAL WINDFALL COMING TO RAISE HOCKEY INTO THE RANGES OF THE OTHER TEAM SPORTS. As a primary example anything including arm wrestling that espn has run in place of the NHL has received higher ratings than NHL games. Do you think ESPN will pay more for NHL rights in the future? and if they won't pay the NHL, WHAT LUNATIC IN TELEVISION IS GOING TO PAY A NEW LEAGUE ANYTHING AT ALL???? I am not an owners fan by any means, in fact in regard to the NFL and MLB I don't support the thought of salary restraint and would like to see the NFL cap go away. But there is still an upside to revenue growth in those sports, not so in the NHL, before Bettman the NHL had the same issues it has now, and first and foremost is it's status compared to other sports and the fact that it will never reach the level of popularity of well I guess even arm wrestling.
Actually, the European Leagues could have an American division of 6 to 8 teams. They would have the financing and structure - it would be a matter of TV contracts and rinks.
And then we would see the great Canadian, American, and European players (since they all don't play in the NHL!)
If after 75 years the NHL has failed to become a sport that has a widespread national following, what makes you think that the american public would embrace a european league? Also WHO would pay that league a cent to televise it's games? Have you seen the NHL's deal with NBC? You have to realise hockey's limitations, as fans we have to realise we are a comparative small number in the sports fan pool. Just because we love hockey does not mean others will and history has shown that unless nationalism is included (USA olympic) hockey just won't sell to the average american. Higher wnba ratings than stanley cup finals ratings bear this out.
Quote: If after 75 years the NHL has failed to become a sport that has a widespread national following, what makes you think that the american public would embrace a european league? Also WHO would pay that league a cent to televise it's games? Have you seen the NHL's deal with NBC? You have to realise hockey's limitations, as fans we have to realise we are a comparative small number in the sports fan pool. Just because we love hockey does not mean others will and history has shown that unless nationalism is included (USA olympic) hockey just won't sell to the average american. Higher wnba ratings than stanley cup finals ratings bear this out.
Maybe because they'll learn from the mistakes the NHL made. Bettman did in 10 years what the owners couldn't do in 65 -- destroyed the game of hockey, pure and simple.
And you know as well as I do that the players are NOT going to just cave in and give the owners what they want. I, for one, am looking forward to them trying to get an impasse declared and, if they succeed, how they're going to handle the Vancouver and Montreal fans when they're told they won't have a franchise.
Bettman has miscalculated this time as he never expected any other opportunities to be out there for the player or that the players would even accept them.
