All with you JJ...but ole Gary got an extension did he not...he is not going anywhere.

"budgeted for a 12/1 start date"

what a complete farce this whole thing has been..management toolism to the nth degree. they wanted it, they manipulated this and the players are pssed and may just say to he!! with'em.
- bogiedoc

True, but . . .

1) he did not get a contract for life
2) it would not be the first time an employer swallowed money to relieve an employee of their duties.

all that said, my guess is if the owners ever stop and look at Bettman's record (labor, expansion, tv contracts, marketing) over the longer haul—and dispassionately—especially if they lose this season—he might not get an extension next time.

And I can tell you at least in part why MLB and the NBA have not contracted: the players' associations, and that is likely part (though just part) of why it won't happen in the NHL.
- John Jaeckel

Does the League need approval from the PA to contract (or expand)?

Does the League need approval from the PA to contract (or expand)?
- Chinaski

Not sure, but if the issue comes up around the CBA talks, you can bet the PA's position on it will impact negotiations.

The PA had to ratify (and didn't) realignment.

Nice, well thought out response. I will only "contest" these two points.

Contraction is "bad" why? Perception?
- John Jaeckel

Perception is one part, but it's much more how other businesses react. When you start contracting teams, advertisers see it as a point of weakness and are less willing to fork out money to promote their goods in what's seen as an unstable league. [Would you pay more to promote a good in a stable league, or one that's adding/dropping/moving teams constantly?] More importantly, businesses who provide services to teams start wondering "if I agree to provide ____, what guarantee do I have that the team won't just up and fold next year and now I'm out in the cold?" They become less willing to engage in long-term contracts or will want money up-front to reduce their own financial exposure - or, may not be willing to provide services at all. Cities who are providing subsidies of any kind may also be less willing to extend them going forward, because money spent now cannot be recouped if the team folds/leaves. All of those things lead to more uncertainty for teams, and that may aggravate existing financial problems or create new ones. The largest 6-10 teams can probably weather this; for everyone else, it becomes a problem.

The points behind why MLB hasn't contracted is completely fair [the CBA between the union and owners currently prohibits it], the NBA's CBA doesn't have that restriction from what I can recall.

I will also tell you that unless I am mistaken, the current CBA and structure of the franchises DOES cost the bigger market teams inordinately in terms of supporting weaker, failing franchises in poorly chosen markets. If the league owns just one money-losing teams, the owners lose money. The owners ARE the league.
- John Jaeckel

It's important to make a distinction here. Large-market teams have to support small-market teams if (A) they have to forfeit their share of excess centrally generated league revenues [though all teams kick in here, so they're not alone on this], and (B) if they have to cut a check in the final phase of revenue sharing. Otherwise, even small-market teams are kicking something in if/when they make the playoffs [the other half of the final phase of revenue sharing] and the players are funding the escrow piece [the 2nd phase, after excess central revenues].

From there, whacking 2 teams cuts down the absolute amount needed to fund revenue sharing. It does not eliminate it, however - and since the average revenue generated per team would move up as a result, all remaining teams who were receiving revenue sharing actually need a little more because of the bump up in revenue/team. The cutting of 2 teams doesn't equate to a dollar-for-dollar reduction in revenue sharing.

"Poorly chosen markets" and "failing franchises" is dependent on many factors. I can go through about 10-15 other markets and point out how each is/was a bad market or how the team failed - and how that can be changed quickly with better on-ice performance, better ownership, or changes to leases/infrastructure that help the team financially. Of the list of oft-cited problems teams/markets, Phoenix is probably beyond saving at this point; it might have been able to survive had the team not sucked for 6-8 years and the arena issues both in Glendale and at America West with the thousands of seats that had to be discounted because of terrible sight lines, but the Moyes/Balsillie ordeal has likely poisoned the well beyond repair. Every other market IMO is salvageable, though some will take more work that others.

Further, you seem to miss two huge tenets of my argument.

Although the pressure is on Bettman, I do agree completely that he and the owners are one and the same. The problem is, the owners WILL NOT blame themselves for over-expansion or anything else. They will blame Bettman if it starts costing them considerable money. That's just human nature and how business works. You know what rolls downhill.
- John Jaeckel

I don't disagree with this, but I think it's important to couch "the pressure is on Bettman" in the specific context you're intending - that if everything blows up, the owners will hold him responsible instead of saying "wow, this was our fault Gary, sorry about that." I didn't get the latter from the way you phrased things. However, Bettman needs a majority of the owners to go along with any deal he supports in order for it to be passed; can he get that? If not, any pressure on him to get a deal done is due to circumstances completely out of his hands, and so there's not much he can really do other than implore the owners to reach a deal with a given set of terms ... and if they won't do that, it's not like he can say "tough luck, I'm the commish, you're taking this deal - so suck it."

Second, sure— expansion can mean more cash for owners—just like raising taxes means more cash for the government. But there's an opposite side to the issue that you can't just ignore. If the CBA and the state of all the league's franchises—specifically money-losing expansion franchises— are costing the owner's millions, how is expansion inherently good for them and contraction not?
- John Jaeckel

I'm not saying that expansion is a good thing, or that it's desirable. I'm simply saying that the owners would prefer expansion to contraction because one of them brings in money while the other costs them up more up front and doesn't relieve the full burden of supporting the remaining teams.

In the "contract 2 teams" scenario, the rest of the league is going to have to step up and buy out the owner(s) losing teams [no one is taking a voluntary zero to go away] - and some teams either won't be able to pay anything at all or will only be able to pay out minimal amounts. Even if Phoenix gets whacked [the other 29 owners would simply lose the money they put into the team], the other team cut is going to be a $150 million or so buyout - maybe more, depending on which team is involved and the specifics of what it will take to settle with all creditors [where necessary]. Do Jacobs, Snider, Wirtz, Molson, MSG, TSN/Bell, et. al. really want to write $15-20 million checks each to do that? Even in the "relocate 2 teams" scenario, if it's being forced [as is commonly suggested] then someone that's not the owners of the teams being moved is going to have to write checks to take care of things like lease penalties, moving expenses [team and player], penalties for breaking other business contracts, etc. - who's going to be doing that, and how much will it cost?

If someone has an easy answer to that, I'm all ears for serious discussion on the topic - otherwise, I think it's a great sound bite but runs into major problems when you start looking at the logistics of it.

Perception is one part, but it's much more how other businesses react. When you start contracting teams, advertisers see it as a point of weakness and are less willing to fork out money to promote their goods in what's seen as an unstable league.
- Irish Blues[Would you pay more to promote a good in a stable league, or one that's adding/dropping/moving teams constantly?] More importantly, businesses who provide services to teams start wondering "if I agree to provide ____, what guarantee do I have that the team won't just up and fold next year and now I'm out in the cold?" They become less willing to engage in long-term contracts or will want money up-front to reduce their own financial exposure - or, may not be willing to provide services at all. Cities who are providing subsidies of any kind may also be less willing to extend them going forward, because money spent now cannot be recouped if the team folds/leaves. All of those things lead to more uncertainty for teams, and that may aggravate existing financial problems or create new ones. The largest 6-10 teams can probably weather this; for everyone else, it becomes a problem.

The points behind why MLB hasn't contracted is completely fair [the CBA between the union and owners currently prohibits it], the NBA's CBA doesn't have that restriction from what I can recall.


It's important to make a distinction here. Large-market teams have to support small-market teams if (A) they have to forfeit their share of excess centrally generated league revenues [though all teams kick in here, so they're not alone on this], and (B) if they have to cut a check in the final phase of revenue sharing. Otherwise, even small-market teams are kicking something in if/when they make the playoffs [the other half of the final phase of revenue sharing] and the players are funding the escrow piece [the 2nd phase, after excess central revenues].

From there, whacking 2 teams cuts down the absolute amount needed to fund revenue sharing. It does not eliminate it, however - and since the average revenue generated per team would move up as a result, all remaining teams who were receiving revenue sharing actually need a little more because of the bump up in revenue/team. The cutting of 2 teams doesn't equate to a dollar-for-dollar reduction in revenue sharing.

"Poorly chosen markets" and "failing franchises" is dependent on many factors. I can go through about 10-15 other markets and point out how each is/was a bad market or how the team failed - and how that can be changed quickly with better on-ice performance, better ownership, or changes to leases/infrastructure that help the team financially. Of the list of oft-cited problems teams/markets, Phoenix is probably beyond saving at this point; it might have been able to survive had the team not sucked for 6-8 years and the arena issues both in Glendale and at America West with the thousands of seats that had to be discounted because of terrible sight lines, but the Moyes/Balsillie ordeal has likely poisoned the well beyond repair. Every other market IMO is salvageable, though some will take more work that others.


I don't disagree with this, but I think it's important to couch "the pressure is on Bettman" in the specific context you're intending - that if everything blows up, the owners will hold him responsible instead of saying "wow, this was our fault Gary, sorry about that." I didn't get the latter from the way you phrased things. However, Bettman needs a majority of the owners to go along with any deal he supports in order for it to be passed; can he get that? If not, any pressure on him to get a deal done is due to circumstances completely out of his hands, and so there's not much he can really do other than implore the owners to reach a deal with a given set of terms ... and if they won't do that, it's not like he can say "tough luck, I'm the commish, you're taking this deal - so suck it."


I'm not saying that expansion is a good thing, or that it's desirable. I'm simply saying that the owners would prefer expansion to contraction because one of them brings in money while the other costs them up more up front and doesn't relieve the full burden of supporting the remaining teams.

In the "contract 2 teams" scenario, the rest of the league is going to have to step up and buy out the owner(s) losing teams [no one is taking a voluntary zero to go away] - and some teams either won't be able to pay anything at all or will only be able to pay out minimal amounts. Even if Phoenix gets whacked [the other 29 owners would simply lose the money they put into the team], the other team cut is going to be a $150 million or so buyout - maybe more, depending on which team is involved and the specifics of what it will take to settle with all creditors [where necessary]. Do Jacobs, Snider, Wirtz, Molson, MSG, TSN/Bell, et. al. really want to write $15-20 million checks each to do that? Even in the "relocate 2 teams" scenario, if it's being forced [as is commonly suggested] then someone that's not the owners of the teams being moved is going to have to write checks to take care of things like lease penalties, moving expenses [team and player], penalties for breaking other business contracts, etc. - who's going to be doing that, and how much will it cost?

If someone has an easy answer to that, I'm all ears for serious discussion on the topic - otherwise, I think it's a great sound bite but runs into major problems when you start looking at the logistics of it.

Completely agree—advertising has been my first business for 28 years—but not sure I would call a 30 team league with four weak/failing franchises "more stable" than a 26 team league with mostly strong franchises.

Further, the league's inability to fix/rein itself in presents a continuing pattern to potential advertisers of strikes/lockouts every 6-10 years.

In terms of a media dollar/promotional investment—the NHL has overexpanded geographically, while doing very little to expand culturally (my big issue). For most large consumer brands, it makes more sense to invest in a sport/event where the stars and participants and the ability of youths to play the sport reflect the populace as a whole. Hockey, in the US especially, is still largely a sport that only rich white kids can play. Hockey Is For Everyone is a start, but there is so much more the league can and should do to that end, as opposed to blithely assuming hockey will take meaningful root in places like Nashvile. D-U-M.

And in large part because of the above, of the four "major" sports, hockey is arguably the least stable. Why? Is it the players and the PA? Or Bettman and the owners? I think most rational minds settle on the latter.

BTW, I'd also like to clarify something that I've seen repeated in numerous locations - that "if the season gets cancelled, the owners will have zero revenue this year." That's wholly incorrect. The more accurate statement may be "the owners will have dramatically less HRR revenue." The owners will still have whatever funds remain from season ticket deposits, luxury boxes, club boxes, and so on [which counts as revenue in 2012-13, but will sit on the balance sheet as a liability], whatever revenue is received from national/local TV contracts [also revenue for '12-13, also will sit on the balance sheet as a liability], all merchandise sales [yes, there are still people putting down money for clothing, equipment and such - maybe not many, but there are some], and other miscellaneous HRR that isn't refundable [NHL Network, team Internet advertising, etc.].

There's also all the non-HRR revenue that some teams will generate. Feel free to list your favorite items that will fall into that list.

At the same time, there's a slew of expenses not being incurred, beyond player salaries. Arena personnel for game days, arena operational costs, transportation, lodging, food [per-diems and post-game meals], equipment, ... lots of money not being spent while games are not being played.

Bottom line: if only one season is missed, most owners can weather it because they'll still have some money coming in. If we go into a 2nd season missing games, or if ticket holders / box holders start demanding money back en masse, ... well, then some owners may start feeling the pinch.

Great article JJ. I hope you are right and Bettman is feeling some internal pressure from these owners. I just keep getting stuck on Bettman's ego and if there ISNT any internal pressure, I cant see him negotiating on a fair and even basis. It appears he is more concerned with winning and being the smartest person in the room than long-term fallout

In terms of a media dollar/promotional investment—the NHL has overexpanded geographically, while doing very little to expand culturally (my big issue).
- John Jaeckel

It seems that the largest untapped potential for revenue is the TV contract. Do you think expansion was done in some of these markets (large TV markets) to try to spark interest in the hope that it would lead to much more lucrative TV deal?

Great article JJ. I hope you are right and Bettman is feeling some internal pressure from these owners. I just keep getting stuck on Bettman's ego and if there ISNT any internal pressure, I cant see him negotiating on a fair and even basis. It appears he is more concerned with winning and being the smartest person in the room than long-term fallout
- sdflyerfan

Thx, alot of debate here about how much pressure the owners are under and therefore Bettman. I might be wrong, but I think it is really naive to assume there is no pressure or that they will remain united if this drags on. The post earlier about the advertisers is significant, and likely true.

It seems that the largest untapped potential for revenue is the TV contract. Do you think expansion was done in some of these markets (large TV markets) to try to spark interest in the hope that it would lead to much more lucrative TV deal?
- Chinaski

Oh sure that entered in to it.

But I also think Bettman really doesn't fundamentally get what hockey is all about culturally. For me, the litmus test is this (albeit very oversimplified). If a sport expands into a market, how hard or easy is it for the community to embrace it—can kids go out and grab a basketball or a bat and baseball and start a game at any time? Answer: yes, pretty much everywhere. Can they do the same to play hockey? No. Yet Bettman et al just assumed when hockey teams showed up in places like Phoenix, Nashville, Tampa and Atlanta, there would be automatic uptake (as often happens with basketball, football or baseball expansions). Didn't happen.

The stupidity and arrogance is almost inexcusable.

Oh sure that entered in to it.

But I also think Bettman really doesn't fundamentally get what hockey is all about culturally. For me, the litmus test is this (albeit very oversimplified). If a sport expands into a market, how hard or easy is it for the community to embrace it—can kids go out and grab a basketball or a bat and baseball and start a game at any time? Answer: yes, pretty much everywhere. Can they do the same to play hockey? No. Yet Bettman et al just assumed when hockey teams showed up in places like Phoenix, Nashville, Tampa and Atlanta, there would be automatic uptake (as often happens with basketball, football or baseball expansions). Didn't happen.

The stupidity and arrogance is almost inexcusable.
- John Jaeckel

I don't disagree. I think they tried the easy way for a big money grab and it has proved disastrous. Several good points brought up here on how it isn't too easy to just get out of it without several negative implications.

Completely agree—advertising has been my first business for 28 years—but not sure I would call a 30 team league with four weak/failing franchises "more stable" than a 26 team league with mostly strong franchises.
- John Jaeckel

Again, the notation of a weak/failing franchise is dependent on the context being used. Is it short-term and fixable, or is it structural and no amount of work can save it? Quite arguably, the St. Louis Blues fall into the latter - high taxes, crappy arena lease, and a very economically sensitive fan base with a declining business base ... and yet, when people start listing problem teams the Blues rarely ever come up.

I don't disagree with your statement, but even if the NHL whacked 4 teams it wouldn't mean the remaining 26 would even be "mostly strong." I think you'd have to cut 8-10 teams [and maybe as many as 12] to get to that point - and that's just for the current scenario. 10 years from now, some teams that would currently qualify as "mostly strong" might well be in trouble.

Further, the league's inability to fix/rein itself in presents a continuing pattern to potential advertisers of strikes/lockouts every 6-10 years.
- John Jaeckel

I completely agree here. At the same time, even in early 2007 when we all could read through the CBA I don't recall anyone anticipating a $70.2 million cap for '12-13 and that there would be teams who struggled to hit the cap floor ... or 14-year, $120 million contracts ... or guys coming off their ELC's and getting 8-year, $62 million deals. We all saw the 15-year Dipietro contract and thought, "Islanders, what morons, ... no way someone does something stupid like that." The key is fixing those things this time now so we don't have to go through this in another 6-10 years; are both sides really willing to do what it's going to take to make that happen? I'm skeptical about it; half-assed non-solutions like the Global Agreement that both sides put together when approving the Kovalchuk contract only reinforce that belief.

In terms of a media dollar/promotional investment—the NHL has overexpanded geographically, while doing very little to expand culturally (my big issue). For most large consumer brands, it makes more sense to invest in a sport/event where the stars and participants and the ability of youths to play the sport reflect the populace as a whole. Hockey, in the US especially, is still largely a sport that only rich white kids can play. Hockey Is For Everyone is a start, but there is so much more the league can and should do to that end, as opposed to blithely assuming hockey will take meaningful root in places like Nashvile. D-U-M.
- John Jaeckel

I blame much of this on the league's inability [or refusal] to actively market the league and its players for much of the 1995-2004 period. We all saw NBA commercials hyping Jordan/Pippen, Stockton/Malone, Barkley, etc. We all saw NFL commercials hyping Smith, Aikman, Young, Elway, Farve, etc. MLB had the roid-induced HR binge. Even NASCAR was marketing the crap out of Earnhardt, Gordon, Jarrett, Wallace, Martin, etc. and making huge inroads. The NHL had, ..... nothing.

You really didn't see anything meaningful until 2005-06, and by then most of a generation of kids had latched on to other sports. That's damage that's going to take years to reverse. When I think of things to blame on Bettman, this goes way up on my list. [Comments about geographical diversification reserved for a later time.]

And in large part because of the above, of the four "major" sports, hockey is arguably the least stable. Why? Is it the players and the PA? Or Bettman and the owners? I think most rational minds settle on the latter.
- John Jaeckel

Bettman is simply the most visible part of the NHL, and so he gets the most attention. He's an easy target - Canada hates him because he's American, hockey fans hate him because he didn't play hockey, the media hates him because he's not brutally honest all the time [as if any commissioner ever is], ... but it runs much deeper than Bettman. Would the last 20 years be different if someone else had been in charge? Probably - but would it be better? There's no guarantee we'd have a Pete Rozelle-type guy instead or another Clarence Campbell; we could have just as easily had a repeat of the Gil Stein Reign of Error.

BTW, I'd also like to clarify something that I've seen repeated in numerous locations - that "if the season gets cancelled, the owners will have zero revenue this year." That's wholly incorrect. The more accurate statement may be "the owners will have dramatically less HRR revenue." The owners will still have whatever funds remain from season ticket deposits, luxury boxes, club boxes, and so on
- Irish Blues[which counts as revenue in 2012-13, but will sit on the balance sheet as a liability], whatever revenue is received from national/local TV contracts [also revenue for '12-13, also will sit on the balance sheet as a liability], all merchandise sales [yes, there are still people putting down money for clothing, equipment and such - maybe not many, but there are some], and other miscellaneous HRR that isn't refundable [NHL Network, team Internet advertising, etc.].

There's also all the non-HRR revenue that some teams will generate. Feel free to list your favorite items that will fall into that list.

At the same time, there's a slew of expenses not being incurred, beyond player salaries. Arena personnel for game days, arena operational costs, transportation, lodging, food [per-diems and post-game meals], equipment, ... lots of money not being spent while games are not being played.

Bottom line: if only one season is missed, most owners can weather it because they'll still have some money coming in. If we go into a 2nd season missing games, or if ticket holders / box holders start demanding money back en masse, ... well, then some owners may start feeling the pinch.

Think Ilitch is going to be happy about possibly losing the Winter Classic at the Big House? I assure you, the McConnells are not made of money relatively speaking and they will lose the ASG too. Could be a death blow for Columbus. Probably true of at least a handful of other franchises. I don't think Rocky Wirtz, an otherwise fabulously wealthy man, really likes the idea of paying 100+ people that long (or providing severances as part of layoff packages) for anything but the best business reasons—which I don't think includes propping up the Phoenix Coyotes. Comparatively speaking, I know he hated paying Cristobal Huet $5.25 million per for two years off cap. The Hawks have a HUGE staff, marketing, administration AND hockey ops. To the best of my knowledge, they've had zero to minimal layoffs— so far.

Yet Bettman et al just assumed when hockey teams showed up in places like Phoenix, Nashville, Tampa and Atlanta, there would be automatic uptake (as often happens with basketball, football or baseball expansions). Didn't happen.
- John Jaeckel

Point: expansion to Tampa took place before Bettman's time. That happened in the dying days of the John Zeigler era. [Edited: had it previously listed as under the Gil Stein Reign of Error, but the decision on awarding a franchise to Tampa was made on/about December 22, 1990.] If you really want to blame Tampa on someone, blame Jeremy Jacobs - who preferred Tampa's offer to pay the $50 million expansion fee up front over Hamilton's attempt to negotiate the fee, and subsequent offer to pay it in installments.

Good point, I kinda realized after posting that was an overestimation. Thx.

I still think more pressure is on Bettman.
- John Jaeckel

Right now? Yes, absolutely. Fast forward 6, maybe 8 weeks, Fehr and Bettman are both looking down the same barrel.

Think Ilitch is going to be happy about possibly losing the Winter Classic at the Big House? I assure you, the McConnells are not made of money relatively speaking and they will lose the ASG too. Could be a death blow for Columbus. Probably true of at least a handful of other franchises. I don't think Rocky Wirtz, an otherwise fabulously wealthy man, really likes the idea of paying 100+ people that long (or providing severances as part of layoff packages) for anything but the best business reasons—which I don't think includes propping up the Phoenix Coyotes. Comparatively speaking, I know he hated paying Cristobal Huet $5.25 million per for two years off cap. The Hawks have a HUGE staff, marketing, administration AND hockey ops. To the best of my knowledge, they've had zero to minimal layoffs— so far.
- John Jaeckel

I'm not saying owners will be happy about losing all of that revenue - and anyone who argues otherwise is just being silly. I apologize if I made it sound that way. I'm simply saying that anyone saying that teams are generating no revenue this year if the season is lost is incorrect; there will still be some revenue generated, just nowhere near as much as what would be if all scheduled games [preseason, regular season, postseason] were played. Obviously, teams would prefer more revenue to less revenue [provided expenses don't eat up all of that additional revenue generated and then some]. However, if the '12-13 season gets cancelled, none of the 30 teams will show a big fat zero for revenue generated.

Re: ASG and Columbus - a couple years back at a Q&A session for Blues fans, someone asked John Davidson about bringing the ASG back to St. Louis. He commented that the ASG was almost always a money-losing proposition for the host team because it had to incur all the expenses while the league retained much [if not all] of the revenue. He specifically pointed to the Cardinals hosting the ASG and said something to the effect of, "if anyone doesn't believe me, ask the Cardinals how much they lost hosting the ASG."

I think one point that's been lost in the contraction discussion is how tough the opposition would be from the NHLPA. Losing four teams and the subsequent employment opportunities? The union would throw an absolute shitfit.

That's one of the main reasons they've been so adamant about revenue sharing. From a player union perspective, they know more business is good business, and they're willing to sacrifice HRR percentages in order to keep job opportunity at the same fixed number, as opposed to slicing, say, 13% employment in exchange for twenty-six financially solvent businesses.

True, but how many employees do the Hawks (for example) have that don't play hockey? I believe the number well exceeds 100.
- John Jaeckel

That sounds about right, but I thought I heard that many of those were being laid off (temporarily) until the lockout is resoved. In any case, good article in this time of little hockey activity!

Oh sure that entered in to it.

But I also think Bettman really doesn't fundamentally get what hockey is all about culturally. For me, the litmus test is this (albeit very oversimplified). If a sport expands into a market, how hard or easy is it for the community to embrace it—can kids go out and grab a basketball or a bat and baseball and start a game at any time? Answer: yes, pretty much everywhere. Can they do the same to play hockey? No. Yet Bettman et al just assumed when hockey teams showed up in places like Phoenix, Nashville, Tampa and Atlanta, there would be automatic uptake (as often happens with basketball, football or baseball expansions). Didn't happen.

The stupidity and arrogance is almost inexcusable.
- John Jaeckel

Why not? Stick, ball, marks on a wall, or two shoes for posts...we did it all the time growing up. It does not take skates and equipment for play hockey. Street/Ball hockey is as easy to play as any pickup game of any other sport.

I think one point that's been lost in the contraction discussion is how tough the opposition would be from the NHLPA. Losing four teams and the subsequent employment opportunities? The union would throw an absolute shitfit.

That's one of the main reasons they've been so adamant about revenue sharing. From a player union perspective, they know more business is good business, and they're willing to sacrifice HRR percentages in order to keep job opportunity at the same fixed number, as opposed to slicing, say, 13% employment in exchange for twenty-six financially solvent businesses.
- Travis Yost

But does the NHLPA really have much of a say in contraction? Especially with no CBA. If the lockout lasts and teh NHL sees this as a viable option to try and control revenue sharing, does the PA have any standing on whether this happens or not? I doubt it...though they will scream and cry about the job losses...and this is where I see that the league should just toss it out as a tactic against the PA.

and this is where I see that the league should just toss it out as a tactic against the PA.
- OilHorse

Like the NHLPA can toss out the salary cap?

I completely agree here. At the same time, even in early 2007 when we all could read through the CBA I don't recall anyone anticipating a $70.2 million cap for '12-13 and that there would be teams who struggled to hit the cap floor ... or 14-year, $120 million contracts ... or guys coming off their ELC's and getting 8-year, $62 million deals. We all saw the 15-year Dipietro contract and thought, "Islanders, what morons, ... no way someone does something stupid like that." The key is fixing those things this time now so we don't have to go through this in another 6-10 years; are both sides really willing to do what it's going to take to make that happen? I'm skeptical about it; half-assed non-solutions like the Global Agreement that both sides put together when approving the Kovalchuk contract only reinforce that belief.
- Irish Blues

Isn't this a part of the NHL's proposal in regards to limits to how contracts are to get put together? Limit to contract length, value of contract fairly similar across the whole contract, etc...

I blame much of this on the league's inability
- Irish Blues[or refusal] to actively market the league and its players for much of the 1995-2004 period. We all saw NBA commercials hyping Jordan/Pippen, Stockton/Malone, Barkley, etc. We all saw NFL commercials hyping Smith, Aikman, Young, Elway, Farve, etc. MLB had the roid-induced HR binge. Even NASCAR was marketing the crap out of Earnhardt, Gordon, Jarrett, Wallace, Martin, etc. and making huge inroads. The NHL had, ..... nothing.

You really didn't see anything meaningful until 2005-06, and by then most of a generation of kids had latched on to other sports. That's damage that's going to take years to reverse. When I think of things to blame on Bettman, this goes way up on my list. [Comments about geographical diversification reserved for a later time.]

There are kids that will get influenced no matter when the marketing is done...better late than never?

Like the NHLPA can toss out the salary cap?
- Travis Yost

which do you think sends the other side in more of a tizzy? Loss of jobs for the PA, or a cap on spending for the teams? I know my choice on that.

I don't know, a lot of this is too complex for my hunter-gatherer brain capacity, but I love the quality and cordiality of the comments on this thread.

(not to mention a Travis Yost sighting)

Nice write-up once again.

Don't think Bettman unfairly suffers from any owner(s) actions. He's their rep, lock, stock & barrel. He should be controlling the message 100% of the time.

Now, what's an artifact of the crummy economy is some non high-profile teams are suffering but who would have predicted that during the last couple expansion? 2005/06? Sure. 10-yrs prior? No.

It's small vs large owners & if Bettman wants a healthier league in 10 years w/o contraction, he should work to move 4-6 teams to better market, whether those mrkts are in Canada or the U.S.