Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[Cujo]

[LMU]

Indeed. The idea that Gary Bettman's a powerless figurehead is just as baseless as the idea that he's a dictator. He works for the owners, yes. His job, however, is to run the league. So while the owners are his employers he's still entrusted to develop policy and lead them in cases such as a lockout or strike.

It's more like a problem that feeds itself. The owners and Bettman are two like-minded entities that just reinforce each others' policies and actions. A new NHL Commissioner may be more of the same. It's also possible, though, that he brings a new way of doing things to the table and that's enough to break the self-feeding cycle by forcing the owners to consider that new way of doing things.

What probably ended up happening was that progress was made with the absence of Bettman/Fehr, but the minute that each was briefed, each one did his best to slap his respective side out of whatever perceived softness/good feelings happened over the last few days. Neither man has proven to have any issue driving off the proverbial cliff, so it's going to take a mutiny on either side for this to get solved.

[DaytonBlue]

There's already a league in place that plays in secondary arenas in major markets and smaller markets in general... the AHL. It also happens to be the top level going in North America right now. Some of you should look into it.

There's hockey to enjoy, you just might need to travel more (or perhaps less) than you're used to. Let Fehr and Bettman do their thing and go see a game.

The only teams within six hours, not counting nhl, are sphl teams. It's fun, but not the same.

[Brass]

I moved out of an area populated with AHL teams (two within a 20-minute drive, in fact) and into an NHL city. Just my luck.

[CS85]

I moved out of an area populated with AHL teams (two within a 20-minute drive, in fact) and into an NHL city. Just my luck.

Comparably, this was going to be the first season I'd ever done fantasy hockey. Derp.

[IceCap]

Indeed. The idea that Gary Bettman's a powerless figurehead is just as baseless as the idea that he's a dictator. He works for the owners, yes. His job, however, is to run the league. So while the owners are his employers he's still entrusted to develop policy and lead them in cases such as a lockout or strike.

It's more like a problem that feeds itself. The owners and Bettman are two like-minded entities that just reinforce each others' policies and actions. A new NHL Commissioner may be more of the same. It's also possible, though, that he brings a new way of doing things to the table and that's enough to break the self-feeding cycle by forcing the owners to consider that new way of doing things.

What probably ended up happening was that progress was made with the absence of Bettman/Fehr, but the minute that each was briefed, each one did his best to slap his respective side out of whatever perceived softness/good feelings happened over the last few days. Neither man has proven to have any issue driving off the proverbial cliff, so it's going to take a mutiny on either side for this to get solved.

I keep thinking a mutiny against Bettman is inevitable but it never happens. The pieces are certainly there. Ed Snider's spoken out against the lockout. The Molsons have spoken out against the lockout. Edwards spoke out against the lockout. The Jets, who are owned by a man who could lock the NHL out (hehe) of every major financial institution in English Canada are against the lockout. Dolan has bad blood with Bettman from past issues, so he could probably be coxed into sticking it to the Commissioner. MLSE is MLSE, but at the same time they HAVE to be upset about being left out of the negotiations on the owners' side of things, considering that they make the league more money then any other team, right? We're talking about some big hitters among NHL ownership too. Surely if they decided to take a stand they could garner enough support to stage this mutiny. Yet it hasn't happened. I doubt it will, despite all the necessary pieces being there.

The players won't mutiny because Fehr is exactly what they wanted after Bob Goodenow.

[zpqmaowl]

"The only thing we have to fear is Fehr himself."

[oddball]

I just can't believe the stupidity of both sides. The owners are losing money by not playing, and don't think they aren't. They are losing revenue from sponsors who probably will never return, they are losing whatever possibilty of having any sort of a descent tv contract, and on top of that they are losing fans who bring the money and buy the tickets. The players are just plain as stupid. They are losing out on money they will never get back, and the ones in the middle to the bottom are getting crushed because every game lost is not only money, but their career. The union talks about how it's not about the big guys, but they are killing the mid-level and fringe guys with each day that passes. It's not like it's hard to get a resolution, anyone with a brain could do it, just split the differences and sign the friggin' agreement. Players want 7 year contracts, owners want 5, okay, how about 6 year contracts? Duh. Oh wait, neither Bettman or Fehr has a brain, they just have egos and will screw the game, the players, and the fans so they can get paid!

[maz]

The thing is, these guys already are rich enough to own top-level professional teams. They aren't exactly gonna go broke because these teams aren't playing. To them, it's all a matter of getting a deal that gets them even more money than they already have, and at this point it is obvious. So you can't blame the players for wanting their fair piece of the pie since they're the ones who are playing a very dangerous game and risking their health and livelihood. I'm not saying the NHLPA side is without fault, but there's a point where the love of the game is surpassed by looking out for yourself. Personally, I'd take this as the last straw, say this season, decertify, and sue the :censored:ers.

[dfwabel]

The thing is, these guys already are rich enough to own top-level professional teams. They aren't exactly gonna go broke because these teams aren't playing. To them, it's all a matter of getting a deal that gets them even more money than they already have, and at this point it is obvious. So you can't blame the players for wanting their fair piece of the pie since they're the ones who are playing a very dangerous game and risking their health and livelihood. I'm not saying the NHLPA side is without fault, but there's a point where the love of the game is surpassed by looking out for yourself. Personally, I'd take this as the last straw, say this season, decertify, and sue the :censored:ers.

Key sports owners counter-point: Outside of cities paying for venues, the owners put up all the capital (aka financial risk).

[rams80]

The thing is, these guys already are rich enough to own top-level professional teams. They aren't exactly gonna go broke because these teams aren't playing. To them, it's all a matter of getting a deal that gets them even more money than they already have, and at this point it is obvious. So you can't blame the players for wanting their fair piece of the pie since they're the ones who are playing a very dangerous game and risking their health and livelihood. I'm not saying the NHLPA side is without fault, but there's a point where the love of the game is surpassed by looking out for yourself. Personally, I'd take this as the last straw, say this season, decertify, and sue the :censored:ers.

Key sports owners counter-point: Outside of cities paying for venues, the owners put up all the capital (aka financial risk).

Counter-counter-point. The owners' portfolios are diversified enough that they can weather the financial implosion of their hockey teams.

[DaytonBlue]

The City of Memphis threatened to sue the NBA before their lockout was settled. Have any NHL cities with publicly funded arenas thought about this?

[Raymie]

I'd kill to see Glendale sue the NHL! Oh sweet revenge.

[pollux]

The new NHL campaign is out:

[JackieMoon]

Well looks like this could be the nail in the coffin for small-market teams. It's a shame too, because the City of Columbus built a whole district around it's arena. Besides all the fans, imagine how many of the businesses around these arenas are suffering.

[bosrs1]

Well looks like this could be the nail in the coffin for small-market teams. It's a shame too, because the City of Columbus built a whole district around it's arena. Besides all the fans, imagine how many of the businesses around these arenas are suffering.

Hate to agree, but I can see several teams that will probably have to be folded in the coming years because of the damage this lockout has done. Ironically after all they've gone through to "save" the Coyotes, they'd still be near the top of that list.

[Mac the Knife]

...and with that, the NHL died and was never seen again.

Good riddance. Time for a new hockey league with competent people in charge.

And where would those teams play? Seriously.

If top level hockey came back as a 16 team league, what venues could they actually play in in which they could gather a TV contract as well as gate revenue?

You don't need 16. 8 would do it for starters. If these cities have venues with seating of 7,500 or better which aren't under lease by an NHL club, they'd be well suited:

1. Hamilton
   
2. Toronto
   
3. Quebec City
   
4. Halifax, or somewhere else in the maritimes
   
5. Hartford
   
6. Minneapolis/St. Paul
   
7. New York/New Jersey
   
8. Houston
   

No Chicago or Los Angeles. No southern markets other than Houston. Only three (Minneapolis, New York, Toronto) where you'd be competing head-to-head if/when the NHL returned. I've said it for two decades and it's more true than ever today - both basketball and hockey's chief pro leagues are capable of being knocked off if there's a combination of the right "battle plan" by an insurgent, and a willingness to sustain MLS-level losses during the first decade to build the brand.

[DaytonBlue]

Would an insurgent league be able to lease buildings where AHL teams are now, or would they have "exclusive rights" too?

[bosrs1]

...and with that, the NHL died and was never seen again.

Good riddance. Time for a new hockey league with competent people in charge.

And where would those teams play? Seriously.

If top level hockey came back as a 16 team league, what venues could they actually play in in which they could gather a TV contract as well as gate revenue?

You don't need 16. 8 would do it for starters. If these cities have venues with seating of 7,500 or better which aren't under lease by an NHL club, they'd be well suited:

1. Hamilton
   
2. Toronto
   
3. Quebec City
   
4. Halifax, or somewhere else in the maritimes
   
5. Hartford
   
6. Minneapolis/St. Paul
   
7. New York/New Jersey
   
8. Houston
   

No Chicago or Los Angeles. No southern markets other than Houston. Only three (Minneapolis, New York, Toronto) where you'd be competing head-to-head if/when the NHL returned. I've said it for two decades and it's more true than ever today - both basketball and hockey's chief pro leagues are capable of being knocked off if there's a combination of the right "battle plan" by an insurgent, and a willingness to sustain MLS-level losses during the first decade to build the brand.

What are your criteria for it being on your list? Because I can think of dozens of markets, that have ice arenas that meet that 7,500 number that would be available that you didn't list, not the least of which are all 3 of the major metro areas in California (San Diego, SF, LA).

Would an insurgent league be able to lease buildings where AHL teams are now, or would they have "exclusive rights" too?

Probably depends on the lease and the arena.

[IceCap]

Mac, the problem's that any insurgent league, even if it did everything right, would need teams in places like Toronto. No start-up Toronto team from a rival league is going to challenge the Toronto Maple Leafs for hockey supremacy in southern Ontario. You might gain a foothold in smaller markets, again if the league was run properly, but you're not going to dethrone the NHL in the "heritage" markets.

Best case scenario for a rival league? They do everything right and kill off most of the NHL, and then absorb the heritage teams they couldn't afford to go head to head against.