So you say that there is a chance?

This is an interesting spin and I haven't seen yet - I mean from the NHL labor dispute point of view - I guess this could play out this way… I guess there really isn’t much going on right now during the dog days of summer. I mean the television networks that broadcast the hockey games are going to be one of the parties that has a lot to lose if there is a work stoppage.

I am also hoping that if there is a NHL lockout that NBC Sports Network comes up with a hockey alternative, like broadcasting more games from the AHL, ECHL or CHL hockey and well showing more college hockey games as well. I guess we are jumping the gun but I would hope that there will be something to fill the void that is left if there is a work stoppage.

Bruce Dowbiggin, Globe and Mail --- One broadcast change from the 2004-05 lockout is there is a considerable TV component at play for the NHL if a lockout goes too far. Eight years ago, NBC, which had made no payments to the league for its rights, understood it might have no content and did not pressure the NHL for an early CBA settlement.

This time, the league has much invested in its partnership with HBO on 24/7, a sports-documentary program that leads into the much-ballyhooed Detroit/Toronto Winter Classic on NBC. For that series to go as planned, filming must start in late November or early December. Losing the HBO connection would be a blow to the prestige the NHL has built of late with its new initiatives.

That’s reminiscent of what happened in the 1994-95 lockout when Fox TV had paid a significant rights fee to start carrying games in January of 1995. The obligation to pacify its U.S. TV partner pushed the NHL to settle earlier than it wanted and, in some ways, created the conditions for the disastrous lockout 10 years later.

These are things to consider - the NHL and HBO would lose a lot of money if there wasn't an NHL season this year. I have read where some speculate that he NHL wants to be going by November so they don’t miss out on their money maker. One silver lining is, if there is an NHL lockout, I guess one could always spend more time with our families. Yeah!

CBA musings

I have been trying to make heads or tails of the new CBA proposal by the NHL owners and let me just say that I have a bad feeling that it could be a long drawn out fight. We should be very worried about the NHL season starting on time – my gut feeling – I am going to predict that the season is delayed until at least November or December.

Jonathan Willis, edmontonjournal.com --- If the NHL gets its way on some of its demands – particularly it’s insistence that players sign five-year deals capped at the rookie maximum – that trickle will expand. To use an Oilers’ example, why would Nail Yakupov be willing to sign for five years on a contract with a base salary of less than $1 million when he could expect to make much more money much sooner in Russia? Particularly if, upon the completion of his five-year entry-level NHL deal, he could look forward to five more years of restricted free agency? Even if he were willing to do so, it seems likely that future drafts would see European players increasingly consider the Kontinental Hockey League as a viable option.

Another interesting wrinkle is the NHL/KHL memorandum of understanding. As things stand, the KHL respects NHL contracts, not poaching talent on deals, and the NHL does likewise. If, however, the NHL starts kneecapping its teams’ ability to compete financially with the KHL, the incentive of the Russian league to respect NHL rules would undoubtedly be greatly reduced.

The possibility exists that the league owners don’t care. What they’re asking for is a huge spike in the amount of money they get to take home, massive restrictions on the negotiating power of individual players, and a much longer time period before talented youngsters start earning big money. With the possibility of huge spikes in take-home money and greater certainty that drafted players will stay in the system for the long haul, an exodus of European talent back to Europe may not bother them in the least.

Initially; after perusing some of the proposals that the owners put forth – I decided that I don’t like the idea of extending entry level deals from three to five years. Why? There is no reason to do that. A player after playing in the NHL for three season should have the ability to get a substantial raise if he has been successful. All that is going to do is steer top European players to the KHL instead of the NHL. I wonder if the Minnesota Wild would miss out on a player like Mikael Granlund?

Also, I don’t think the players are going to take a big cut in pay from the owners especially after some of the ridiculous free agent contracts that have been signed this free agent signing period. Donald Fehr is on record as saying that player’s roll backs are not going to happen on his watch.

Just for comparison purposes the NFL and NBA players are making 47 and 50 percent of their leagues revenues. So it will be interesting to see what the NHL players agree to, I wonder if they would go very far below 50 percent.

By comparison, during labour disputes in the past year, players in the NFL and NBA agreed to revenue shares of roughly 47 percent and 50 percent, respectively. [thespec.com]

Based on the fact that the NHL made 3.3 billion last season – I don’t have a lot of empathy for the owners.

I also think that you might want to plan to do something else during the months of October and November – don’t plan on watching the NHL – because this disagreement is going to take a while if the owners don’t come down off their high horse.