2022-23 NHL Thread
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
bustaheims
Active member
Bill33 said:
Yup. A decade ago. Basically, there?s only marginally more reason to worry about the Bruins than any of the other top teams.
Guilt Trip
Active member
No wonder they traded him. Sorry I don't see him that valuable. If Dubas did that we'd want his head on a platter.Zee said:
dappleganger
Active member
Guilt Trip said:
People would be roasting Dubas.
It?s the grace you get as a GM when you win multiple cups.
ZBBM
Active member
This doesn't actually fit here but it's well worth a read:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/sports/hockey/jaromir-jagr-czech-extraliga.html
Had no idea Jagr is still playing. It's kind of pathetic, in a way, but I admire how up-front he is about hockey being an escape for him. And that he's trying to do right by his hometown.
Cool that they quote Plekanec, and if you read it note the pictures of the Czech stars in the background of the last photo, including the Kaberles.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/sports/hockey/jaromir-jagr-czech-extraliga.html
Had no idea Jagr is still playing. It's kind of pathetic, in a way, but I admire how up-front he is about hockey being an escape for him. And that he's trying to do right by his hometown.
Cool that they quote Plekanec, and if you read it note the pictures of the Czech stars in the background of the last photo, including the Kaberles.
Kin
New member
Kind of an esoteric question amidst all the trade hubbub but with all the RSN's in the state's going out of business and that being a fair chunk of revenue for a lot of American teams, anyone else kind of think the cap might be in for a bumpy ride in the short term?
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.c...3/02/27/Upfront/regional-sports-networks.aspx
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.c...3/02/27/Upfront/regional-sports-networks.aspx
Nik said:
With the NHL CBA including escrow, that was included for things like this - a buffer for deviations from projected vs actual revenues. My guess is the players will feel it first. Going forward, the NHL can be justified to increase escrow to help deal with this if it gets bumpier.
If media revenues go down, the players salaries effectively go down accordingly in the NHL via escrow. Having a business model and CBA with a mechanism (escrow) to help deal with this revenue turbulence seems like a good thing for both the league and the players. It provides some stability. The players will have some disappointment that their contracts are worth less than 100% but that has always been in place for moments like this.
Youtube advertising revenues has surpassed cable TV advertising revenues. The times are-a-changing. Sports leagues will need to adjust to get their fair piece of the viewer revenue pie as traditional broadcasting revenues splinter on the net. MLSE owners, Bell & Rogers, seem to be all over this which should help the league. I suspect the other major sports leagues are as well.
Kin
New member
cw said:
Like I said, I'm more interested in how this affects the cap than I am the actual carving up of dollars and cents between players and owners.
I don't think this is a short-term patch of turbulence. I think this is a wholesale shift in how sports teams address their media rights. The NHL, of all the leagues, is probably least well suited to the coming disruption as they neither have a massive national media deal that has a ton of value to a streaming service and the idea that Amazon or Google are particularly interested in acquiring the rights to a Tuesday night Hurricanes/Predators game seems pretty unlikely.
Canadian and big market teams are pretty safe but your smaller market and non-traditional market US teams are about to have a ton of media inventory with no obvious buyer out there to sell it to. Do they try direct selling to fans? Given the ratings some of these teams see, they'll be getting a tiny fraction the money they could get from RSN's who lived on charging carrier fees, rather than advertising.
This is a major pillar of the current pro sports business model and the owners idiot-proofing their leagues aside, we're almost certainly going to see reasonably substantial changes ahead.
Nik said:
The sports leagues seem intent on finding their way
https://theathletic.com/4154687/2023/02/06/nba-tv-viewership-audience-rsn/
'RSN's loss over here becomes someone else's gain over there' - sort of thing.
The RSNs made the commitment they did because their business model, forecasts and actual revenues supported it. Which means they had some viewers because without them, they would have no subscriptions or advertising $.
Did the viewers abandon watching sports. I don't think so. Not from the Athletic article.
Did a % of them leave? Quite possibly with all the distractions the internet and entertainment options provide - might have diluted them a bit.
RSNs may be out of luck. Times changed and they didn't or couldn't. But teams may take over and do their own thing to recover that revenue. It's not like the world suddenly stopped watching sports. The world is trending away from cable tv and the RSNs who thrived on it.
Could it affect the cap? It might. Short term, escrow has that handled. Longer term, maybe the HAVES have to kick in more to the HAVENOTs in revenue sharing.
The NHL has been marketing viewing their games and merchandising in Europe and other countries. They're having some success. Apparently, Australia is even interested. Some of their revenues will be increased as the viewing of their games is globalized - which will help to offset burps from the lost RSN revenue. Maybe the original six (or other NHL teams) in hockey will develop in more popularity something like the most popular soccer clubs. So the clubs with the highest revenues take in more and as a result, some more $ needs to be shared with the less globally popular clubs.
They've had that debate. They've audited the numbers to shatter the mistrust that caused the lockout. They have a general business model and resulting cap that will need to be adjusted - as they anticipated it would as circumstances change.
Highlander
Active member
I think Nik has hit the nail on the head. I am in AZ for the winter, no cable in the house, only YouTube and my subscriptions to Amazon Prime, Netflix and Apple TV. My phone is on a service called Mint Mobile. I pay 15 bucks a month for unlimited talk and text in the US and Canada and even the UK (which is great as my wife is British) and includes 4GB of data. Who owns Mint Mobile? Ryan Reynolds!Nik said:
Koodo was doing me the favour of charging me 12 dollars a day for using their services here. Thanks Koodo, most endearing of you.
Can you get it in Canada, of course not because we are the most ripped off country in the world when it comes to Internet/TV/ Cable services. No YouTube TV.
Basically the world is changing so fast that you need to be really tuned in to know what is going to happen next. From a marketing perspective its like standing on quicksand. What worked yesterday is gone today and so we see contracts for services drying up in the Internet vortex.
Look at VOX and PPP and what that service is going through. Why the Athletic had to add adds to the site to survive. And at the base of it is our online services for purchasing anything we want with delivery the same day in some cases.
The basic truth is that as powerful as Internet marketing is, it is not the be all and end all of all marketing tools. Only the people who know proper content in building websites and advertising them make it.
The really hard truth is the majority of people trying to make it on the Internet is sad fail.
Highlander said:
The RSN problem exists for many team sports & others - not just the NHL.
In terms of revenues and the NHL cap, because the proportion of broadcast revenues is smaller in the NHL than the other major sports leagues, it is not as troublesome proportionally.
According to Sports Business, The NHL has apparently already been paid for 3/4 of the NHL season by the RSNs so they're apparently not exposed to a big financial bath this year. They'll have the summer to adjust their path forward while they implement interim measures now. As well, these teams just experienced a substantial increase (double what NBC was paying them) in their national broadcasting deal. So they have a significant offsetting revenue increase to dampen the financial losses.
Ballys is looking at Chapter 11 restructuring over the next 30 days so it is not clear yet that it is a total loss."50 cents on the dollar for the next quarter keeps the lights on .."??
Further, for some time, the writing has been on the wall for cable. There are already some alternate deals in place for streaming or alternatives. MLB is apparently looking at setting up their own RSN. The NHL is apparently looking at doing what they've done in Europe to provide the NHL to fans of Euros playing in the NHL: partnering more with ESPN. The feeling is that is a better path for the NHL to exposing the game to potential new fans - as opposed to setting up their own RSN. ESPN seems to be available to help the NHL in this effort though I don't know what i's have been dotted, etc. They've been through some implementation of it in Europe.
Years ago, in the 50s & early 60s, you plugged in the fuzzy black & white tube, wiggled the antennae for reception and watched Murry Westgate pitch Esso live during the commercial breaks. You had no replays - you missed a goal, you were out of luck. That was space age compared to my Dad listening to games broadcast on the radio with Foster Hewitt in the 20s and 30s - no TV. In both cases: only with weather permitting. We've come a long way. I cannot bring myself to hand-wring over cable dying a slow death as a delivery option for NHL games when we have so many other options available to us. To me, it is just a short term business and marketing problem. That's all.
Kin
New member
cw said:
Right. Nobody said this was exclusive to the NHL. This is a major and significant issue throughout sports.
cw said:
This largely depends on what you mean by "the other sports leagues". The NFL, for instance, isn't affected at all because they didn't do any business with RSNs. MLS had already signed their rights over to Apple so ditto. The NBA has a much more valuable national deal and is a much more popular sport in the US and would have a much easier time selling streaming rights as it's a much more popular sport in the US.
cw said:
This here is pretty good evidence of just how substantial a problem this is. The only two solutions going forward you even have suggested are something entirely vague about "partnering" with ESPN(a national channel with little appetite for the content RSN's had) and MLB thinking about setting up their own RSN which, as you yourself point out, means setting up shop in a marketplace that we all know is dying a slow and predictable death. It also makes absolutely no sense anyways as it wouldn't just be about setting up a single RSN but one per team affected and unless MLB is going to become a sports right bidder you'd be trying to sell a cable network with only inventory from a sport that doesn't play for 6 months of the year. RSN's are going out of business because the marketplace is changing drastically and cable is dying and right now even industry insiders are sort of shrugging their shoulders trying to come up with alternatives.
I'm not sure asking "How might this seismic change in people's media consumption habits affect the cap long term" really qualifies as "hand-wringing" over it but ignoring that this is a big deal is just sticking your head in the sand. I think any reasonable person could look at the NHL as it currently exists and see that there are a lot of teams that aren't particularly well suited to experience a significant disruption in their local TV revenues with no real concrete alternatives ahead.
Anyways, if anyone is interested in a discussion on these matters among people intimately involved with this I'd recommend this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWPrMm4D0kg&ab_channel=LeBatardShow which is a sports business podcast featuring the ex-President of ESPN and the former President of MLB's Miami Marlins.
Nik said:
So, we agree that it is a problem for many sports. It is not as great a problem for the NHL in terms of shorter-term revenues because, as I already said, NHL broadcasting dollars are a significantly smaller percentage of their overall revenues. And their national US deal with NBC more than tripled in revenue with Disney & Turner Sports. So short term, the NHL are going to get financially hurt less than other sports with this RSN problem.
To be more specific:
An example given was NBA team RSN revenue will fall due to RSN failure from $30 mil/yr RSN to $8 mil/yr per team for streaming on demand. The NHL is about 25% of that NBA broadcast revenue. They'll go from roughly $7.5 mil to $2 mil/team (only for those teams affected by RSN failure - roughly half?). So, they're down $5.5 mil/yr per team due to RSN failure (again, only for some NHL teams). But each NHL team is getting $14.5 mil more per year from the new national broadcast deals. Compared to where they just were with NBC, they're net $9 mil/yr per team ahead with the teams that get whacked by RSN - roughly - in broadcasting revenue and $14.5 mil ahead with the unaffected teams.
Again, I do not see the big hand wringing here with respect to the cap - which will rise/have risen more than $4.5 mil per team due to national broadcast revenues. If half the teams are affected by RSN, the cap will effectively drop about a mil shorter term which will get picked up in escrow - not the cap itself.
This year, since the NHL has allegedly received 75% of its RSN $, we're talking about a $300,000/team hit picked up by escrow. No matter what the Youtube videos spew, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that and neither is anyone else in the NHL. The bigger problem will be if the lights go out - how they'll get games to subscribers but the NHL contract is with the cable company - not the subscribers.
Nik said:
First of all, regarding "the only two solutions":
Contract law 101 is: you cannot break the contract. The NHL cannot firmly engage a solution to replace RSNs until the RSN have violated their contract AND after being advised of it, have failed to cure the violation. The NHL can't say too much publicly because they could damage the RSN and be legally liable. There are specific clauses in those contracts that govern the relationship. Often, they'll have 'divorce' clauses for non performance, etc. They have to follow them or they'll lose big time in court and the RSN could get away free or counter claim damages. No alternative solution can be legally in place and/or publicized before the contract is broken beyond repair. To date, to the best of my knowledge, these games are still being broadcast. That's why the media 'solutions' that we're getting are limited loose conjecture.
You can bet with the storm clouds forming over RSNs, Bettman & Co are all over what they're going to do. He's not a stupid businessman. They have had meetings to review it.
Ballys/Sinclair is not being stupid either. They have cited a clause in one of their deals that gives them a 30 day grace period to make the next $140 mil payment - so they're still following their contracts - as I'm sure their lawyers are guiding them to do.
Apparently, the baseball teams are the ones who stand the most to lose with the timing. Their first payment for the season is in April. Reportedly, the NHL got 75% of their RSN money so far this year.
Ballys/Sinclair are allegedly filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection - which is restructuring - not Chapter 7 "they're toast - divide up what is left". Ballys, and other RSNs, may well come back and say 50 cents on the dollar and we'll finish the season. Or "we'll do 75,65,55 cents on the dollar for the next three years" to help us survive declining cable subscriptions and debt pressures and the sports leagues don't have a burp with viewers. All of a sudden, all that's left to do is get the knot out of the panties for a while. Looks bad but we don't really know yet for sure.
I don't have the contract. I don't know what jurisdiction the Chapter 11 is being done in. There is a massive amount we don't know. So we should be very careful passing absolute judgement because we don't have many facts.
Cable subscriptions have not completely dried up. They've somewhat gradually decreased as opposed to falling off a cliff. Cooler heads may need to prevail here so both sides don't lose badly. It looks like they're posturing to get a break on a bad contract or loan or buying time. On the other side of the coin, if Ballys and Sinclair turn out the lights on games all of a sudden, they could be facing lawsuits for damages beyond the contract. There are probably penalty clauses in the deals. They're probably supposed to give timely notice, etc. Sinclair has other sports streaming business - a conflict of interest leaving it exposed to lawsuits if one is sacrificed for the gain of the other. Lots of things they have to be wary of here. Chapter 11 is about trying to find a financial compromise. If there isn't one then it goes to 7. I'd like to see more of what transpires before going nuts.
Nik said:
Even those guys in the video you linked say it is a short term problem. And one of them also says if they went with ESPN bundle via Disney, the RSN model would be good for another 5-10 years which is what folks are hinting the NHL will do.
So we've dealt with a hunk of the "cap" issue you have presented.
Here is what might concern me and you regarding the cap - you allude to it some with your remarks on only "two solutions" :
The NHL is trying to grow their game. Bundling helps non NHL fans to stumble into or casually encounter the sport - which helps them grow it. MLB have enough of a base to do their own network. So does the NBA. That will not work as well for the NHL or any smaller sport trying to grow their game. Longer term, that might be where the cap implications become larger. But I can't get sucked into hand-wringing over that yet because I think the NHL and many others already know that and they're supposedly looking at bundling (with ESPN) if the RSNs collapse. So even that seems premature. At the very least, we need a lot more facts.
Guilt Trip
Active member
Yup and he's dragging them all with him. That team isn't even close to a playoff spot without him.L K said:
