Yeah sure is funny making assumptions on abodes... should I go back to Miami or LA cause its Covid city; or go to London? Plenty to do in lots of cities I've got places if there was no Covid. So travel is tough and Vancouver is safest. Anyway, that has nothing to do with wanting NHL hockey.
Yeah sure is funny making assumptions on abodes... should I go back to Miami or LA cause its Covid city; or go to London? Plenty to do in lots of cities I've got places if there was no Covid. So travel is tough and Vancouver is safest. Anyway, that has nothing to do with wanting NHL hockey. - NuckUp
I somewhat agree but that faith is in platooning the youngins & a healthy season.
More would depend on the F’s improving & playing better. Team D is the big area to fix. - Nighthawk
Yes D has talent potential to be better. Canucks said they prefer Taxi Squad to keep in Canada. Utica would be a one way ticket if AHL plays.
ELC's easier to paper up and down could keep:
Rafferty - could take over for Benn or injury sub for Myers.
Rathbone - could rotate in with OJ or be sub in for Edler needing a rest day.
Then either Woo, just in case everyone drops eve though he's not ready; or Brisbois. Good for a one time emergency call protected only. Not including Chatfield who's not signed. There is no cap for him plus he's rumored looking to sign in Europe.
Location: Making the most of the worst situation... Canuck fan 4life , BC Joined: 12.23.2014
Nov 26 @ 1:08 AM ET
Short season and hybrid bubbles might be able to cover the season. TV deals are about 600M. Last year the two bubbles combined cost 80M for play ins and playoffs.
Edit: Corrected 820M from TV - manvanfan
23M for all 31 teams after the bubble costs.
The teams would straight up lose 50 to 70M each.
I don't see them playing unless the players are willing to play for 25% of their contacts...
I don't know though, I understand that they would also need to play a minimum number of games to fulfill they contract. New TV contract next year might be more lucrative though if they're forward thinking.
23M for all 31 teams after the bubble costs.
The teams would straight up lose 50 to 70M each.
I don't see them playing unless the players are willing to play for 25% of their contacts...
I don't know though, I understand that they would also need to play a minimum number of games to fulfill they contract. New TV contract next year might be more lucrative though if they're forward thinking. - Pres.cup
When they play, put ads on them like Euro leagues.
When they play, put ads on them like Euro leagues. - WelfareWerewolf
That might help AHL teams that have small business local markets. But NHL teams would need big corporate sponsors. Those budgets for ad spending are already allocated.
That might help AHL teams that have small business local markets. But NHL teams would need big corporate sponsors. Those budgets for ad spending are already allocated. - NuckUp
Really.?
I would think even, lets say, Coca-Cola has an existing add agreement. You don't think they would pour MORE money into getting their "brand" on tv 24/7, instead of just tv timeouts.
(I don't know who the NHL has for add revenue, just using Coke as a Possible example)
Even non existing agreements I could see a bunch of company's wanting their name on the ice when players are. Probably pay a pretty penny too.
Players might not like it...unless you do a 70/30 split, in favor of the players. (Get them paid, and the 30% might offset some team/owner costs.)
Unless you are saying the NHL already has a rule about adds and jerseys. I don't know. Just presenting ideas.
Like...
Loui, Mike D, and the rights to Trashcan to Detroit for a second. (don't tell, I would take a third.)
Late to the blog, thanks Carol and as usual great job. I do wonder if Demko is 1A though... did this already come up? I think Holtby will be the starter but demko will get a lot of starts
I would think even, lets say, Coca-Cola has an existing add agreement. You don't think they would pour MORE money into getting their "brand" on tv 24/7, instead of just tv timeouts.
(I don't know who the NHL has for add revenue, just using Coke as a Possible example)
Even non existing agreements I could see a bunch of company's wanting their name on the ice when players are. Probably pay a pretty penny too.
Players might not like it...unless you do a 70/30 split, in favor of the players. (Get them paid, and the 30% might offset some team/owner costs.)
Unless you are saying the NHL already has a rule about adds and jerseys. I don't know. Just presenting ideas.
Like...
Loui, Mike D, and the rights to Trashcan to Detroit for a second. (don't tell, I would take a third.) - WelfareWerewolf
Of course there has been rules around adverts on jerseys. A new CBA is coming but that would be where changes happen.
I think it will happen, you’re not wrong in saying so. But not now, not until everyone gets paid and it’s mutually beneficial for players/owners. As you say, all about them $. Plus lawyers and agreements. It’s possible a new agreement gets rushed though given the circumstances
I would think even, lets say, Coca-Cola has an existing add agreement. You don't think they would pour MORE money into getting their "brand" on tv 24/7, instead of just tv timeouts.
(I don't know who the NHL has for add revenue, just using Coke as a Possible example)
Even non existing agreements I could see a bunch of company's wanting their name on the ice when players are. Probably pay a pretty penny too.
Players might not like it...unless you do a 70/30 split, in favor of the players. (Get them paid, and the 30% might offset some team/owner costs.)
Unless you are saying the NHL already has a rule about adds and jerseys. I don't know. Just presenting ideas.
Like...
Loui, Mike D, and the rights to Trashcan to Detroit for a second. (don't tell, I would take a third.) - WelfareWerewolf
There may be interest. Team jerseys would have to be redesigned if they do it like soccer. If stamped it would have to be planned placements too. Nike deal might preclude it too. But its too late to get new corporate add money in place for upcoming season. Plus make the logo stamps for the jerseys both official and fan sales. Even adding digital add space at rinks or on TV broadcasts would take time to implement between the entities (NHL/TEAM/sponsor)
The players probably won't get entitlement to add revenue. Just like NHL doesn't get percentage of individual player endorsements. That would be an amendment to new CBA that would create some turmoil.
There may be interest. Team jerseys would have to be redesigned if they do it like soccer. If stamped it would have to be planned placements too. Nike deal might preclude it too. But its too late to get new corporate add money in place for upcoming season. Plus make the logo stamps for the jerseys both official and fan sales. Even adding digital add space at rinks or on TV broadcasts would take time to implement between the entities (NHL/TEAM/sponsor)
The players probably won't get entitlement to add revenue. Just like NHL doesn't get percentage of individual player endorsements. That would be an amendment to new CBA that would create some turmoil. - NuckUp
Unless...
Make a deal for, let's say, 22/23 season; NHL partnering with (insert mega corp/s) to have their adds on jerseys. Start promoting as soon as the ink is dry, (and take the money) Iron out details over the season.
Players won't do Bubbles Mini...I talked to Sutter and Kris Russel personally on this as they are working out at the rink. Another option will present. - LordHumungous
Not 3 month bubbles. Two or three weeks bubbles. Players go on two week road trips a few times a year.
What would be the fallout, as minivan posted today and I posted similar a few days ago, the league revenue for this season through TV deals covers players salaries of approximately 7 teams.
Sure there may be some other advertising revenues, but peanuts compared to having bums in the seats. - Reubenkincade
For owners that own their arena's it's reported on a game day, full house plus concessions about 1.25-1.5M per game they make.
I don't, and good thing cause its a ghost town. 
