2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby longtimefan on Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:07 pm

https://www.ontheforecheck.com/2013/6/7 ... -explained

The NHL does have revenue sharing as part of the CBA. This is from the previous CBA, but I understand that the new CBA was basically an extension.

In short, the revenue sharing system is the financial mechanism which enables the Salary Cap, by taking money in part from teams that could afford to spend much more than the Cap (Toronto, the New York Rangers, Montreal, etc.) and distributing it to those which need help to fill out a roster that at least sits somewhere in the bottom half of the payroll range (Phoenix, Columbus, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, etc.). It's not simply a temporary assistance scheme for franchises going through a rough patch, it's a recognition that some markets are much, much bigger than the rest, but the league wishes to restrict the payroll range to some extent.

NHL Revenue Sharing Explained
Funding
Subject to a few conditions, the NHL will take its league-wide Hockey Related Revenue figure (HRR) and multiply it by 0.06055 to determine the Redistribution Commitment for that season. Using the 2011-2012 HRR of $3.3 billion as an example, that would yield $200 million going into the revenue sharing plan.

Under the new setup, there are three funding stages which fill up the revenue sharing pot. First, a maximum of 50% of the Redistribution Commitment is drawn from the Top 10 highest-grossing teams based on pre-season and regular season revenue. Each team's contribution is based on how much they earn over and above the 11th-ranked team, so the teams in the 8-10 spots don't pay in nearly as much as the top three, for example.

Next, those teams participating in the Stanley Cup playoffs (regardless of their earning power during the regular season) chip in 35% of gate receipts from home playoff games. So the next time you hear someone spout that playoff home games are pure gravy to teams, slap them upside the head - that wasn't even the case under the 2005 CBA, but you still hear it from time to time.


If, after those two phases, the Redistribution Commitment hasn't been raised, the league can chip in with centrally generated revenues, such as sales of Gary Bettman Fatheads and leftover player escrow funds.

Revenue Sharing Recipients
In broad strokes, the basic idea is that the Redistribution Commitment is divided up among recipient teams to help bring them up to a Targeted Team Player Compensation level, which is a calculated value somewhere between the salary floor and the mid-point based on a number of factors. The distribution amounts for specific teams can be adjusted by a special Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee, which includes representatives from both the NHL and NHLPA, but the overall level of distribution must remain the same (in other words, if they bump one team's distribution up, those funds have to come out of someone else's distribution).

What makes this latest version of revenue sharing interesting is that some of the barriers which prevented teams from receiving funds have been removed. For example, under the old deal, teams in large media markets (such as the New York Islanders and Anaheim Ducks) were banned outright from receiving funds. Now, teams in media markets of more than 3 million households can receive 50% of what the calculations would otherwise dictate. In addition, various performance parameters (paid attendance averaging at least 14,000, growing business at an above-average rate, etc.) have been removed. In the past, failing to meet those criteria could cause a team to lose 25-50% of their distribution. In place of those punitive measures, this CBA sets up an Industry Growth Fund, in which lagging teams submit business plans for how to improve and can receive loans or grants to help in that regard.

Goodbye to the Mid-Point "Soft Cap"?
Of great interest to a team like Nashville, however, we have the removal of something we used to refer to as the "soft cap" at the mid-point of the salary range. In the now-expired 2005 CBA, Article 49.7 (a) read:

"...any remaining Escrow Account funds shall be distributed to any Club that had an Actual Club Salary that was less than the Midpoint of the Payroll Range (measured as of the final day of the NHL Regular Season), with the amount of funds each such Club receives being sufficient to bring it up to the Midpoint of the Payroll Range..."

In other words, there was an additional cost to teams like the Preds exceeding the mid-point, in that it could cause them to miss out on that distribution of escrow funds. While exact figures aren't available, the basic idea is that by adding $500,000 in payroll, you could cost your team millions in lost escrow disbursement.

In the new 2013 CBA, there is no language equivalent that quoted above in the revenue sharing portion of the document. The removal of this "soft cap" doesn't mean that teams can go wild with their spending, however. The intent of the Revenue Sharing program is to help teams afford a payroll that is no higher than the mid-point, so if recipient teams decide to go over that level, they do so at their own peril. At least now, however, such a move doesn't lead to a double-whammy.

So if you remember that article I wrote back in April about how much the Preds might have available to spend in free agency, that analysis has been rendered somewhat obsolete. The rules have indeed changed...


I could be wrong, but this all strikes me as posturing. As mentioned above, the Pens have begun informal practices, as have a lot of teams. They may choose to push it back a bit further with the encouraging news of the vaccine, which was approved for use in the UK today. The league is very reliant on gate receipts. Even a couple of weeks longer would seem to help. It's just figuring out the best avenue. As Lebrun pointed out a while back, it's a pay me now or pay me later scenario.

Pierre LeBrun
@PierreVLeBrun
The NHL views this as a timing issue. The players are only entitled to 50 % of HRR. The more they take this year, the more they owe (in debt payments) in future years. Which is true. But the NHLPA factored all those factors when it agreed to the new CBA terms in June. So...
7:03 PM · Nov 18, 2020


It just needs to play out.
longtimefan
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,937
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby interstorm on Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:12 pm

pens_CT wrote:
interstorm wrote:So here is what I don't get. The New York Rangers franchise was bought in 1997 for $195 million dollars -- and Forbes estimates their worth (in 2019) at $1.65 BILLION dollars - a value that has gone up (on average) by over $63M every year for the last 23 years. So when it comes to money, there are avenues for loans using equity against the franchises to get through this thing (assuming that equity wasn't used elsewhere but that implies a moral hazard of extending oneself too far). When it comes to business ownership - the owners retain vast amounts of the wealth created by their business because they are assuming the risk (whereas employees are free to up and move). We'll - global pandemics, no matter how unlikely, are one of those risks. I have a hard time finding fault with the players (who truly are the product) when the franchises, who have benefited greatly over the years from the efforts of the sport, have it within themselves to make up the difference.

Not meaning to get political on this and for those who have read the politics thread my perspective is clear there -- but to me, this is like a public fortune 500 company asking for salary cuts of it's most important staff as opposed to issuing new stock because they don't want to hurt shareholder interests.

Each and every NHL team, save maybe Seattle, has it within themselves to get the money needed to pay the players and play the season. They just would rather not set a bad precident, beat down the union and preserve that franchise equity they hold so dear. It really is that simple.


So you cherry picked a team from the media market of the world to illustrate your point. I'm sure there are franchises (Toronto, Montreal etc.) that could proceed in such a manner. There's probably an equal number of teams (Arizona, Florida, Carolina) that lose money even with fans in the stands who probably don't have the ability to borrow from the franchise equity. Just because you have billionaires owning these teams doesn't mean they are willing to lose tens of millions of dollars to operate a business enterprise, that's how they became billionaires in the first place staying away from such bad investments.

I'm not pro-business in this situation but you have a hockey business model that depends on putting butts in the stands in order to generate revenue. This isn't the NFL operating off of a huge TV contract, and on sales of merchandise etc. Telling billionaires to suck it up and borrow money for a team that might lose money or barely break even, in normal times, to keep a league a float for a pandemic season, isn't going to happen.


It wasn't just a cherry pick, was just the first result that came up. So how about this (when googling the latest team to be sold). The Hurricanes were bought in 1994 for $47M and sold 24 years later for $420M. Regardless of revenue, these franchises have a lot of inherent value that can be used to buoy the league through tough times. Won't happen, but don't try to convince me it isn't there or isn't possible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... llion/amp/
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,119
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: From IglooReport - same user name

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby longtimefan on Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:37 pm

Bettman addressed the situation at nhl.com.

https://www.nhl.com/news/bettman-nhl-fo ... -319748708

The League has targeted Jan. 1, 2021 for the start of this season.

"That is a work in progress, influenced largely by what we're hearing from the medical experts, and we talk to some pretty highly placed people without name-dropping," Commissioner Gary Bettman said Wednesday.

"COVID[-19] is going through a second wave, which could be worse than the first wave, and between Thanksgiving and the aftermath and what they think is going to happen for Christmas and the aftermath, we are taking our time and making sure that as we look for ways to move forward we're focused on health and safety and doing the right things."


Based on what the NHL is being told by medical experts, particularly regarding the availability of vaccines to the general public, Commissioner Bettman said arenas could be full in 2021-22, when the Seattle Kraken begin play as an expansion team.

"I think this is perhaps the most important thing," the Commissioner said. "What we're focused on is trying to get through the '20-21 season so that we can be back in position for '21-22 to normalcy. … We are hopeful and optimistic based on everything we're hearing that we can look at normalcy by the time we get to '21-22 whatever happens this season."


Commissioner Bettman said the NHL has not asked the NHLPA to renegotiate the NHL/NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement after the League and union announced a four-year extension July 10 that takes the agreement through 2025-26.

The Commissioner said the NHL and NHLPA are discussing short-term issues and the long-term economic impact.

Short-term issues include what the season will look like; whether teams will play in home arenas, hubs or a hybrid; and potential for temporary divisional realignment.


"It's part of the myriad of issues that we're dealing with, which is why when people say, 'Oh, well, they're trying to renegotiate,' the answer to all of this is, we've got a lot of issues and a lot of problems to deal with, and the system is going to be stressed for everyone. And is there an appetite for working through all of those issues?"

The owners and the players split hockey-related revenue 50-50 under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. A portion of players' salaries is held in escrow during the accounting process. The extension capped escrow, starting at 20 percent for 2020-21 and descending to 6 percent by 2023-24.

The NHL salary cap is tied to hockey-related revenue under the teams of the collective bargaining agreement as well. It will remain at $81.5 million until hockey-related revenue surpasses $3.3 billion, according to the extension.


"Whatever the revenues are, the players only get 50 percent," Commissioner Bettman said. "And if we overpay them and they don't pay us back in the short term, they have to pay us back over time. There will be stresses on the system, and we've had discussions about what those stresses are and how they might be dealt with, but we're not trying to say you must do X, Y and Z. We're trying to look for ways to continue to work together.

"I know it's being portrayed as something else, and it's unfortunate and it's inaccurate, because at the end of the day, if the system gets stressed, it's going to be stressed for both of us.

"If we have to pay out lots of cash, two-thirds of which is going to come back to us, that may cause some stress, but we'll have to deal with it if we're going to move forward. And by the same token, if the players owe us more money than anybody imagined, the salary cap could be flat or close to flat for the next five or six years, and players into the future will be repaying what we're owed.

"So the [situation] isn't like, well, we demand a renegotiation. To the contrary, it's we see the way the system is going to be impacted. Is it something that makes sense to deal with in the context of everything else that we may have to do, which is out of the ordinary and unanticipated, in order to be in a position to possibly play?"
longtimefan
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,937
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Sigwolf on Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:27 pm

The league can target playing on the moon if it likes, because that seems about as likely as a Jan. 1 start.
Sigwolf
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,352
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: north central Ohio

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Cow_Master66 on Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:33 am

longtimefan wrote:https://www.ontheforecheck.com/2013/6/7/4406482/2013-nhl-cba-revenue-sharing-program-explained

The NHL does have revenue sharing as part of the CBA. This is from the previous CBA, but I understand that the new CBA was basically an extension.

In short, the revenue sharing system is the financial mechanism which enables the Salary Cap, by taking money in part from teams that could afford to spend much more than the Cap (Toronto, the New York Rangers, Montreal, etc.) and distributing it to those which need help to fill out a roster that at least sits somewhere in the bottom half of the payroll range (Phoenix, Columbus, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, etc.). It's not simply a temporary assistance scheme for franchises going through a rough patch, it's a recognition that some markets are much, much bigger than the rest, but the league wishes to restrict the payroll range to some extent.

NHL Revenue Sharing Explained
Funding
Subject to a few conditions, the NHL will take its league-wide Hockey Related Revenue figure (HRR) and multiply it by 0.06055 to determine the Redistribution Commitment for that season. Using the 2011-2012 HRR of $3.3 billion as an example, that would yield $200 million going into the revenue sharing plan.

Under the new setup, there are three funding stages which fill up the revenue sharing pot. First, a maximum of 50% of the Redistribution Commitment is drawn from the Top 10 highest-grossing teams based on pre-season and regular season revenue. Each team's contribution is based on how much they earn over and above the 11th-ranked team, so the teams in the 8-10 spots don't pay in nearly as much as the top three, for example.

Next, those teams participating in the Stanley Cup playoffs (regardless of their earning power during the regular season) chip in 35% of gate receipts from home playoff games. So the next time you hear someone spout that playoff home games are pure gravy to teams, slap them upside the head - that wasn't even the case under the 2005 CBA, but you still hear it from time to time.


If, after those two phases, the Redistribution Commitment hasn't been raised, the league can chip in with centrally generated revenues, such as sales of Gary Bettman Fatheads and leftover player escrow funds.

Revenue Sharing Recipients
In broad strokes, the basic idea is that the Redistribution Commitment is divided up among recipient teams to help bring them up to a Targeted Team Player Compensation level, which is a calculated value somewhere between the salary floor and the mid-point based on a number of factors. The distribution amounts for specific teams can be adjusted by a special Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee, which includes representatives from both the NHL and NHLPA, but the overall level of distribution must remain the same (in other words, if they bump one team's distribution up, those funds have to come out of someone else's distribution).

What makes this latest version of revenue sharing interesting is that some of the barriers which prevented teams from receiving funds have been removed. For example, under the old deal, teams in large media markets (such as the New York Islanders and Anaheim Ducks) were banned outright from receiving funds. Now, teams in media markets of more than 3 million households can receive 50% of what the calculations would otherwise dictate. In addition, various performance parameters (paid attendance averaging at least 14,000, growing business at an above-average rate, etc.) have been removed. In the past, failing to meet those criteria could cause a team to lose 25-50% of their distribution. In place of those punitive measures, this CBA sets up an Industry Growth Fund, in which lagging teams submit business plans for how to improve and can receive loans or grants to help in that regard.

Goodbye to the Mid-Point "Soft Cap"?
Of great interest to a team like Nashville, however, we have the removal of something we used to refer to as the "soft cap" at the mid-point of the salary range. In the now-expired 2005 CBA, Article 49.7 (a) read:

"...any remaining Escrow Account funds shall be distributed to any Club that had an Actual Club Salary that was less than the Midpoint of the Payroll Range (measured as of the final day of the NHL Regular Season), with the amount of funds each such Club receives being sufficient to bring it up to the Midpoint of the Payroll Range..."

In other words, there was an additional cost to teams like the Preds exceeding the mid-point, in that it could cause them to miss out on that distribution of escrow funds. While exact figures aren't available, the basic idea is that by adding $500,000 in payroll, you could cost your team millions in lost escrow disbursement.

In the new 2013 CBA, there is no language equivalent that quoted above in the revenue sharing portion of the document. The removal of this "soft cap" doesn't mean that teams can go wild with their spending, however. The intent of the Revenue Sharing program is to help teams afford a payroll that is no higher than the mid-point, so if recipient teams decide to go over that level, they do so at their own peril. At least now, however, such a move doesn't lead to a double-whammy.

So if you remember that article I wrote back in April about how much the Preds might have available to spend in free agency, that analysis has been rendered somewhat obsolete. The rules have indeed changed...


I could be wrong, but this all strikes me as posturing. As mentioned above, the Pens have begun informal practices, as have a lot of teams. They may choose to push it back a bit further with the encouraging news of the vaccine, which was approved for use in the UK today. The league is very reliant on gate receipts. Even a couple of weeks longer would seem to help. It's just figuring out the best avenue. As Lebrun pointed out a while back, it's a pay me now or pay me later scenario.

Pierre LeBrun
@PierreVLeBrun
The NHL views this as a timing issue. The players are only entitled to 50 % of HRR. The more they take this year, the more they owe (in debt payments) in future years. Which is true. But the NHLPA factored all those factors when it agreed to the new CBA terms in June. So...
7:03 PM · Nov 18, 2020


It just needs to play out.


Every state will be different but what makes anyone think fans will be allowed in an indoor arena anytime before, I dunno, April? It’s just not gonna happen....

The only way this goes forward is if the NHL plays in empty arenas, and some teams will probably have to play home games in different states (which the players will just love).
Cow_Master66
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 9:41 am

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby longtimefan on Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:30 pm

Cow_Master66 wrote:
longtimefan wrote:https://www.ontheforecheck.com/2013/6/7/4406482/2013-nhl-cba-revenue-sharing-program-explained

The NHL does have revenue sharing as part of the CBA. This is from the previous CBA, but I understand that the new CBA was basically an extension.

In short, the revenue sharing system is the financial mechanism which enables the Salary Cap, by taking money in part from teams that could afford to spend much more than the Cap (Toronto, the New York Rangers, Montreal, etc.) and distributing it to those which need help to fill out a roster that at least sits somewhere in the bottom half of the payroll range (Phoenix, Columbus, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, etc.). It's not simply a temporary assistance scheme for franchises going through a rough patch, it's a recognition that some markets are much, much bigger than the rest, but the league wishes to restrict the payroll range to some extent.

NHL Revenue Sharing Explained
Funding
Subject to a few conditions, the NHL will take its league-wide Hockey Related Revenue figure (HRR) and multiply it by 0.06055 to determine the Redistribution Commitment for that season. Using the 2011-2012 HRR of $3.3 billion as an example, that would yield $200 million going into the revenue sharing plan.

Under the new setup, there are three funding stages which fill up the revenue sharing pot. First, a maximum of 50% of the Redistribution Commitment is drawn from the Top 10 highest-grossing teams based on pre-season and regular season revenue. Each team's contribution is based on how much they earn over and above the 11th-ranked team, so the teams in the 8-10 spots don't pay in nearly as much as the top three, for example.

Next, those teams participating in the Stanley Cup playoffs (regardless of their earning power during the regular season) chip in 35% of gate receipts from home playoff games. So the next time you hear someone spout that playoff home games are pure gravy to teams, slap them upside the head - that wasn't even the case under the 2005 CBA, but you still hear it from time to time.


If, after those two phases, the Redistribution Commitment hasn't been raised, the league can chip in with centrally generated revenues, such as sales of Gary Bettman Fatheads and leftover player escrow funds.

Revenue Sharing Recipients
In broad strokes, the basic idea is that the Redistribution Commitment is divided up among recipient teams to help bring them up to a Targeted Team Player Compensation level, which is a calculated value somewhere between the salary floor and the mid-point based on a number of factors. The distribution amounts for specific teams can be adjusted by a special Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee, which includes representatives from both the NHL and NHLPA, but the overall level of distribution must remain the same (in other words, if they bump one team's distribution up, those funds have to come out of someone else's distribution).

What makes this latest version of revenue sharing interesting is that some of the barriers which prevented teams from receiving funds have been removed. For example, under the old deal, teams in large media markets (such as the New York Islanders and Anaheim Ducks) were banned outright from receiving funds. Now, teams in media markets of more than 3 million households can receive 50% of what the calculations would otherwise dictate. In addition, various performance parameters (paid attendance averaging at least 14,000, growing business at an above-average rate, etc.) have been removed. In the past, failing to meet those criteria could cause a team to lose 25-50% of their distribution. In place of those punitive measures, this CBA sets up an Industry Growth Fund, in which lagging teams submit business plans for how to improve and can receive loans or grants to help in that regard.

Goodbye to the Mid-Point "Soft Cap"?
Of great interest to a team like Nashville, however, we have the removal of something we used to refer to as the "soft cap" at the mid-point of the salary range. In the now-expired 2005 CBA, Article 49.7 (a) read:

"...any remaining Escrow Account funds shall be distributed to any Club that had an Actual Club Salary that was less than the Midpoint of the Payroll Range (measured as of the final day of the NHL Regular Season), with the amount of funds each such Club receives being sufficient to bring it up to the Midpoint of the Payroll Range..."

In other words, there was an additional cost to teams like the Preds exceeding the mid-point, in that it could cause them to miss out on that distribution of escrow funds. While exact figures aren't available, the basic idea is that by adding $500,000 in payroll, you could cost your team millions in lost escrow disbursement.

In the new 2013 CBA, there is no language equivalent that quoted above in the revenue sharing portion of the document. The removal of this "soft cap" doesn't mean that teams can go wild with their spending, however. The intent of the Revenue Sharing program is to help teams afford a payroll that is no higher than the mid-point, so if recipient teams decide to go over that level, they do so at their own peril. At least now, however, such a move doesn't lead to a double-whammy.

So if you remember that article I wrote back in April about how much the Preds might have available to spend in free agency, that analysis has been rendered somewhat obsolete. The rules have indeed changed...


I could be wrong, but this all strikes me as posturing. As mentioned above, the Pens have begun informal practices, as have a lot of teams. They may choose to push it back a bit further with the encouraging news of the vaccine, which was approved for use in the UK today. The league is very reliant on gate receipts. Even a couple of weeks longer would seem to help. It's just figuring out the best avenue. As Lebrun pointed out a while back, it's a pay me now or pay me later scenario.

Pierre LeBrun
@PierreVLeBrun
The NHL views this as a timing issue. The players are only entitled to 50 % of HRR. The more they take this year, the more they owe (in debt payments) in future years. Which is true. But the NHLPA factored all those factors when it agreed to the new CBA terms in June. So...
7:03 PM · Nov 18, 2020


It just needs to play out.


Every state will be different but what makes anyone think fans will be allowed in an indoor arena anytime before, I dunno, April? It’s just not gonna happen....

The only way this goes forward is if the NHL plays in empty arenas, and some teams will probably have to play home games in different states (which the players will just love).


You're right, but if you read Bettman's quotes above, he's not planning to play to full arenas until 2020-21. But they are planning to have a season. For lots of reasons. Oee of the major ones being the TV contract, which is expected to increase substantially. But they have to honor their contract with NBC first. Bettman has said that the damage to the game will be worse with a cancelled season than playing in empty arenas. Not all owners agree, but that's part of the current negotiations. From the player's standpoint, they don't get paid if there is no season.

It's a bad situation, but they have a lot of incentive to get a season of some nature in. It's preferable to the long term health of the league. I think January 1st is too ambitious, but I do expect they will play a season of some sorts. Even if it's without fans.
longtimefan
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,937
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Cow_Master66 on Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:20 am

I also saw some teams, including Pittsburgh, are evaluating playing outdoor this year to allow for some attendees.

I posted that a few weeks ago and was curious why it wasn’t on the table.
Cow_Master66
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 9:41 am

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby interstorm on Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:54 am

Here is a thought - and I'm not really sure what I think of it myself - but if the NHL is in a mode where every idea is on the table, then I guess something like this would be too.

How does everyone feel about the NHL turning into a no-contact or light-contact league this year? In doing that, maybe more games could be played in a shorter amount of time. Fights are immediate ejections (can't social distance then) and after the whistle pile ups result in penalties. The game would look a lot different (for this year only) and might resemble an all-star game (but hopefully with a reason or cause to play for). I wouldn't outright ignore that idea especially if it allows for more games. Players might be willing to be more flexible too (maybe) because in theory the wear and tear on their bodies will be diminished (not removed...still plenty of injuries will happen). Just a thought.
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,119
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: From IglooReport - same user name

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby FLPensFan on Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:56 am

interstorm wrote:Here is a thought - and I'm not really sure what I think of it myself - but if the NHL is in a mode where every idea is on the table, then I guess something like this would be too.

How does everyone feel about the NHL turning into a no-contact or light-contact league this year? In doing that, maybe more games could be played in a shorter amount of time. Fights are immediate ejections (can't social distance then) and after the whistle pile ups result in penalties. The game would look a lot different (for this year only) and might resemble an all-star game (but hopefully with a reason or cause to play for). I wouldn't outright ignore that idea especially if it allows for more games. Players might be willing to be more flexible too (maybe) because in theory the wear and tear on their bodies will be diminished (not removed...still plenty of injuries will happen). Just a thought.

No thought is a bad thought at this point, but, I don't think that really helps them with the main issue, which is revenue. More games without fans in the stands doesn't really help the league that much, unless there is an aspect that I am missing.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,302
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby FLPensFan on Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:10 pm

Cow_Master66 wrote:I also saw some teams, including Pittsburgh, are evaluating playing outdoor this year to allow for some attendees.

I posted that a few weeks ago and was curious why it wasn’t on the table.

Cost.

I saw somewhere (like a TSN or Sportsnet level, not a random blod) that, even if you take out the initial building and setup cost, the cost of maintaining an outdoor ice rink could approach $1M a day....that's just not feasible. It's just too expensive to keep the ice at an acceptable level.

The best scenario that I could see would be divisional bubbles, say, 2 per division. Each bubble city could host 2-3 games per day, and you have series like baseball, where, for example, the Pens and Flyers play a 3 game series. The bubbles would not be strict to where teams could not come and go, but, having series and only two rinks to play plus team practice facilities in their home locations, you still limit the amount of travel that is going on.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,302
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby interstorm on Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:30 pm

FLPensFan wrote:
interstorm wrote:Here is a thought - and I'm not really sure what I think of it myself - but if the NHL is in a mode where every idea is on the table, then I guess something like this would be too.

How does everyone feel about the NHL turning into a no-contact or light-contact league this year? In doing that, maybe more games could be played in a shorter amount of time. Fights are immediate ejections (can't social distance then) and after the whistle pile ups result in penalties. The game would look a lot different (for this year only) and might resemble an all-star game (but hopefully with a reason or cause to play for). I wouldn't outright ignore that idea especially if it allows for more games. Players might be willing to be more flexible too (maybe) because in theory the wear and tear on their bodies will be diminished (not removed...still plenty of injuries will happen). Just a thought.

No thought is a bad thought at this point, but, I don't think that really helps them with the main issue, which is revenue. More games without fans in the stands doesn't really help the league that much, unless there is an aspect that I am missing.


Fans in the stands is certainly the primary concern. Beyond that, assuming there is a resolution other than not having a season, next question will be the number of games and how long the season has to be in order to fit that. This idea is aimed at that secondary concern (which depending on the primary, might or might not have to be considered).
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,119
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: From IglooReport - same user name

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby longtimefan on Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:29 pm

https://theathletic.com/2239596/2020/12 ... -schedule/

Lebrun today.

As my TSN colleague Frank Seravalli first reported, the NHL and NHLPA had more meetings Thursday night which produced some interesting developments.

Sources on both sides confirmed the following to me:

• The Jan. 1 start date both sides were clinging to is no longer realistic given where we are on the calendar. On Thursday, for the first time, the NHL asked the NHLPA about a mid-January start to the season.

• A 52-game and 56-game schedule were both discussed as options Thursday night, but a source says the preference for both sides would be 56 games for obvious revenue reasons.

• Training camps for all 31 teams would start around Jan. 2, although that could still be tweaked.

• The seven-day voluntary pre-camps for the seven teams not involved in the postseason remains on the table, a source said. But another source said it wasn’t 100 percent it could happen, that both sides need to figure that out. The NHL definitely wants it. The pre-camps for the Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Senators, Red Wings, Sabres and Devils, under this new timetable, would be slated to open in late December.

• Obviously, the COVID numbers remain a huge concern. As we get deeper into December, the NHL and NHLPA have to keep the door open for further delays depending on the safety of being able to lunch the season in mid-January. The pandemic could still force a further delay and start into February.
longtimefan
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,937
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Posterboy on Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:45 pm

All NHL games should be moved to outdoor venues permanently.

https://www.polyglidesyntheticice.com/
Posterboy
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:57 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Cow_Master66 on Fri Dec 04, 2020 4:26 pm

FLPensFan wrote:
Cow_Master66 wrote:I also saw some teams, including Pittsburgh, are evaluating playing outdoor this year to allow for some attendees.

I posted that a few weeks ago and was curious why it wasn’t on the table.

Cost.

I saw somewhere (like a TSN or Sportsnet level, not a random blod) that, even if you take out the initial building and setup cost, the cost of maintaining an outdoor ice rink could approach $1M a day....that's just not feasible. It's just too expensive to keep the ice at an acceptable level.

The best scenario that I could see would be divisional bubbles, say, 2 per division. Each bubble city could host 2-3 games per day, and you have series like baseball, where, for example, the Pens and Flyers play a 3 game series. The bubbles would not be strict to where teams could not come and go, but, having series and only two rinks to play plus team practice facilities in their home locations, you still limit the amount of travel that is going on.


I'll assume that cost is for southern cities...I doubt if the local outdoor arena a mile from my house is spending 1M a day since admission is $5...Sure the cost goes up with non-permanent rinks but a Million a day?
Cow_Master66
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 9:41 am

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby FLPensFan on Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:33 pm

Cow_Master66 wrote:
FLPensFan wrote:
Cow_Master66 wrote:I also saw some teams, including Pittsburgh, are evaluating playing outdoor this year to allow for some attendees.

I posted that a few weeks ago and was curious why it wasn’t on the table.

Cost.

I saw somewhere (like a TSN or Sportsnet level, not a random blod) that, even if you take out the initial building and setup cost, the cost of maintaining an outdoor ice rink could approach $1M a day....that's just not feasible. It's just too expensive to keep the ice at an acceptable level.

The best scenario that I could see would be divisional bubbles, say, 2 per division. Each bubble city could host 2-3 games per day, and you have series like baseball, where, for example, the Pens and Flyers play a 3 game series. The bubbles would not be strict to where teams could not come and go, but, having series and only two rinks to play plus team practice facilities in their home locations, you still limit the amount of travel that is going on.


I'll assume that cost is for southern cities...I doubt if the local outdoor arena a mile from my house is spending 1M a day since admission is $5...Sure the cost goes up with non-permanent rinks but a Million a day?

I think that would be the cost anywhere to erect an outdoor arena where ice currently doesn't exist today. In an outdoor arena like the one by your house, they have built permanent infrastructure to properly cool the surface and keep it the required temperature. No idea where you are or how far north, but, even then, games would be going on in early July. That isn't going to work in probably 80% of the NHL cities. Even in March and April you can get the odd warm front where you get up into the 60s for a few days.....or other days where it is cold enough, in the 40s and 50s, but raining. Just so many variables with ALL outdoor rinks.

That doesn't begin to even cover the lack of facilities if they were to use existing outdoor rinks. The NHL was looking into smaller rinks at one point for the conclusion of last season (I think even Cranberry at one point), but determined they just didn't have the locker rooms or other required facilities to keep up to the NHL standars.

I just don't see outdoor rinks working out.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,302
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby longtimefan on Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:23 am

Posterboy wrote:All NHL games should be moved to outdoor venues permanently.

https://www.polyglidesyntheticice.com/


This will never happen. Remember when PPG Arena was built. the Pens signed a 40 year lease. That's true around the league to one extent or the other. The arena cost $321M to build. The Pens are the main tenant. There's no way for them to walk away from that.
longtimefan
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,937
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby pens_CT on Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:04 am

longtimefan wrote:
Posterboy wrote:All NHL games should be moved to outdoor venues permanently.

https://www.polyglidesyntheticice.com/


This will never happen. Remember when PPG Arena was built. the Pens signed a 40 year lease. That's true around the league to one extent or the other. The arena cost $321M to build. The Pens are the main tenant. There's no way for them to walk away from that.


Even when you take the arena lease out of the equation, I don't see people sitting outdoors on a typical January or February evening in Pittsburgh when its like 17 degrees. Once for a Winter Classic sure, multiple times over those months no way.
pens_CT
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,279
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:47 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Posterboy on Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:33 am

pens_CT wrote:
longtimefan wrote:
Posterboy wrote:All NHL games should be moved to outdoor venues permanently.

https://www.polyglidesyntheticice.com/


This will never happen. Remember when PPG Arena was built. the Pens signed a 40 year lease. That's true around the league to one extent or the other. The arena cost $321M to build. The Pens are the main tenant. There's no way for them to walk away from that.


Even when you take the arena lease out of the equation, I don't see people sitting outdoors on a typical January or February evening in Pittsburgh when its like 17 degrees. Once for a Winter Classic sure, multiple times over those months no way.


Oh I agree, was just joking. Even disregarding the financial/logistical issues I doubt very highly the NHL or NHLPA would ever go for it.

That said has anyone ever played or skated on an artificial surface? I'd love to try it out some time, it looks very realistic. I'm really surprised that the NHL doesn't support more of these in the form of outdoor rinks, especially in southern, non-traditional markets. You'd think it'd help grow interest in the game. I know there's inline but still quite different.

That last sentence reminds me of something that still makes me laugh: Every time an announcer used to mentioned Joe Mullen they'd have to follow it with "who learned to play hockey on roller skates in Hell's Kitchen". I think it was a law or something. :D
Posterboy
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:57 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Cow_Master66 on Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:34 pm

FLPensFan wrote:
Cow_Master66 wrote:
FLPensFan wrote:
Cow_Master66 wrote:I also saw some teams, including Pittsburgh, are evaluating playing outdoor this year to allow for some attendees.

I posted that a few weeks ago and was curious why it wasn’t on the table.

Cost.

I saw somewhere (like a TSN or Sportsnet level, not a random blod) that, even if you take out the initial building and setup cost, the cost of maintaining an outdoor ice rink could approach $1M a day....that's just not feasible. It's just too expensive to keep the ice at an acceptable level.

The best scenario that I could see would be divisional bubbles, say, 2 per division. Each bubble city could host 2-3 games per day, and you have series like baseball, where, for example, the Pens and Flyers play a 3 game series. The bubbles would not be strict to where teams could not come and go, but, having series and only two rinks to play plus team practice facilities in their home locations, you still limit the amount of travel that is going on.


I'll assume that cost is for southern cities...I doubt if the local outdoor arena a mile from my house is spending 1M a day since admission is $5...Sure the cost goes up with non-permanent rinks but a Million a day?

I think that would be the cost anywhere to erect an outdoor arena where ice currently doesn't exist today. In an outdoor arena like the one by your house, they have built permanent infrastructure to properly cool the surface and keep it the required temperature. No idea where you are or how far north, but, even then, games would be going on in early July. That isn't going to work in probably 80% of the NHL cities. Even in March and April you can get the odd warm front where you get up into the 60s for a few days.....or other days where it is cold enough, in the 40s and 50s, but raining. Just so many variables with ALL outdoor rinks.

That doesn't begin to even cover the lack of facilities if they were to use existing outdoor rinks. The NHL was looking into smaller rinks at one point for the conclusion of last season (I think even Cranberry at one point), but determined they just didn't have the locker rooms or other required facilities to keep up to the NHL standars.

I just don't see outdoor rinks working out.


The one by my house I was referring to is outdoors.

Also I get all the variables, which is why I have said the season won’t happen. Outdoor options give teams the opportunity to get some additional revenue. If a team could utilize an existing facility and build some “temporary seating around it, it could be an option to explore.
Cow_Master66
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 9:41 am

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby sjnhiils on Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:58 pm

Friedman,LeBrun and a few others are saying a Jan. 15th start date.
sjnhiils
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,109
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:32 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Sigwolf on Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:18 am

sjnhiils wrote:Friedman,LeBrun and a few others are saying a Jan. 15th start date.


Probably because that's realistically the earliest it could happen at this point, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are close to getting it done. We can hope, though.
Sigwolf
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,352
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: north central Ohio

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby stonewizard51 on Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:53 am

Back in October, I posted on another board that I felt a February 1st start time wasn't out of the realm of possibility. FWIW I was hammered because I wasn't drinking the mid December Kool-Aid so a mid January start time, if that actually happens and I hope it does, is a plus for me. No matter what the decision is the health and safety of the players has to come first.
stonewizard51
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,259
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby FLPensFan on Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:47 pm

Sigwolf wrote:
sjnhiils wrote:Friedman,LeBrun and a few others are saying a Jan. 15th start date.


Probably because that's realistically the earliest it could happen at this point, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are close to getting it done. We can hope, though.

I've seen a few places on Twitter today where some reporters are saying players are starting to be told to make their way back to their home playing cities. Oilers were the last one I saw say players like McDavid, etc got notice to make their way to Edmonton soon.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,302
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby Sigwolf on Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:48 pm

FLPensFan wrote:I've seen a few places on Twitter today where some reporters are saying players are starting to be told to make their way back to their home playing cities. Oilers were the last one I saw say players like McDavid, etc got notice to make their way to Edmonton soon.


Certainly a good sign, but when it's an actual done-deal they will be shouting it from the rooftops, not seeding a few twitter rumors. It's reason to be hopeful, but it could also be a case of hedging their bets and could amount to nothing if things fall through. Call me a pessimist... :wink:
Sigwolf
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,352
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: north central Ohio

Re: 2021 Season discussion (start date, # of games, etc)

Postby FLPensFan on Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:15 pm

Sigwolf wrote:
FLPensFan wrote:I've seen a few places on Twitter today where some reporters are saying players are starting to be told to make their way back to their home playing cities. Oilers were the last one I saw say players like McDavid, etc got notice to make their way to Edmonton soon.


Certainly a good sign, but when it's an actual done-deal they will be shouting it from the rooftops, not seeding a few twitter rumors. It's reason to be hopeful, but it could also be a case of hedging their bets and could amount to nothing if things fall through. Call me a pessimist... :wink:

Yep, sounds like they have most of the details figured out, at least they think they do.....except for the money issues. You know, the gigantic elephant in the room. Again, they probably need to have something hammered out by the end of this week, otherwise, January 15th starts looking less realistic.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,302
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

PreviousNext

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sjnhiils and 22 guests


e-mail