Buds Board Keepers League

He's right. NHL should receive compensation for sending their players over. It's by far the biggest event in the Winter Olympics and the NHL takes on so much risk without any reward. I would be so angry if Kessel was out for the season after this tournament.

Thats an outrageous proposition for anyone sane in this current world whether it is right or wrong... The olympics event itself, already is a massively costly event and often causes the mini great depression amongst hosting cities due to lack of support after the olympics financially. Iihf doesnt have that kinda power or money either and thats who garth wants compensation from... Hes just a fuckin retard. It wud have to be thru some huge 3rd party insurance company and the nhl shud be the ones insuring their own players that have been invited AND accepted voluntarily to go participate. 90 percent of all Olympic participants not named pro athletes in prestigious leagues dont make 5 million a season

kimmer wroteCOLONThats an outrageous proposition for anyone sane in this current world whether it is right or wrong... The olympics event itself, already is a massively costly event and often causes the mini great depression amongst hosting cities due to lack of support after the olympics financially. Iihf doesnt have that kinda power or money either and thats who garth wants compensation from... Hes just a fuckin retard. It wud have to be thru some huge 3rd party insurance company and the nhl shud be the ones insuring their own players that have been invited AND accepted voluntarily to go participate. 90 percent of all Olympic participants not named pro athletes in prestigious leagues dont make 5 million a season

I'm not suggesting the Islanders receive compensation for Tavares from the IOC. I'm suggesting the NHL has no reason to go in the future unless compensated before the games happen in the first place.

It's not the NHL's problem what Olympic financials are. They're sending assets over and putting them at risk without any reward. It's different than Skiing or Curling where the people are going over and that is what they play for.

NHL obviously has indirect financial motivation (growing the sport of hockey) or they wouldn't have agreed to go to Nagano. Why would the IOC start paying them now when they've happily gone to five straight events gratis?

I think it's fundamentally against the Olympic spirit of amateur sport to have them there in the first place, but to pay the athletes (if indirectly - revenue sharing) to come would completely erode any pretense of amateurism.

And if it were possible the NBA would have done it already.

Mike wroteCOLONNHL obviously has indirect financial motivation (growing the sport of hockey) or they wouldn't have agreed to go to Nagano. Why would the IOC start paying them now when they've happily gone to five straight events gratis?

I think it's fundamentally against the Olympic spirit of amateur sport to have them there in the first place, but to pay the athletes (if indirectly - revenue sharing) to come would completely erode any pretense of amateurism.

Mike wroteCOLONAnd if it were possible the NBA would have done it already.

1. The landscape has changed since Nagano
2. It really doesn't help the league much when the games are on the other side of the world and games are so early, especially next time when it will be in Korea
3. The risk the teams take is huge. The NBA doesn't have the same risks to take. Basketball doesn't lead to season ending injuries nearly as often
4. I don't expect the NHL to go again. These teams are fighting for a playoff spot tooth and nail and to take a risk without monetary compensation makes no sense.

Btw - the IOC pays the IIHF for every olympics. The NHL just doesn't see that money. So the IOC does pay for hockey.

Olympic sux already ever since soccer stopped sending pros over

And agreed. Dunno if the isles will EVER let jt go to another olympics again

SuperMario wroteCOLON1. The landscape has changed since Nagano

How so? If anything it would be more conducive to growing internationally. We have preseason and reg season games in Europe. Bettman, coming from basketball, would love to open Asia up for hockey talent as they have basketball. Hell, even Daly recently hinted that they are evaluating franchises in Europe (source: PTS).

SuperMario wroteCOLON2. It really doesn't help the league much when the games are on the other side of the world and games are so early, especially next time when it will be in Korea

Clearly the NHL disagrees, as the first time back was also in Asia... was not considered an issue. If it was they would have just waited until SLC.

SuperMario wroteCOLON3. The risk the teams take is huge. The NBA doesn't have the same risks to take. Basketball doesn't lead to season ending injuries nearly as often

I don't know if that's true (that NBA doesn't have as many season ending injuries), but they do benefit from having the games in the off season obviously - something Bettman has requested from the IOC many times.

SuperMario wroteCOLON4. I don't expect the NHL to go again. These teams are fighting for a playoff spot tooth and nail and to take a risk without monetary compensation makes no sense.

Each team has this issue equally. There's no inherently greater risk for any one team. Garth's just being a bitch now that his player got hurt. Not that it matters this season.

SuperMario wroteCOLONBtw - the IOC pays the IIHF for every olympics. The NHL just doesn't see that money. So the IOC does pay for hockey.

IIHF may get a slice, but the individual olympians do not - which was my point.

I wouldn't be against the NHL requiring either the IIHF/IOC or the NHLPA to pay for insurance, but that should have been handled during the CBA negotiations.

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON1. The landscape has changed since Nagano

How so? If anything it would be more conducive to growing internationally. We have preseason and reg season games in Europe. Bettman, coming from basketball, would love to open Asia up for hockey talent as they have basketball. Hell, even Daly recently hinted that they are evaluating franchises in Europe (source: PTS).

The game is big already. This point about "helps grow the game" is such bs. NHL helps grow the game. Taking risk without reward is bad business.

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON2. It really doesn't help the league much when the games are on the other side of the world and games are so early, especially next time when it will be in Korea

Clearly the NHL disagrees, as the first time back was also in Asia... was not considered an issue. If it was they would have just waited until SLC.

No, the NHL disagreed back in 1998. The NHL does not disagree now at all. In fact it is the opposite.

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON3. The risk the teams take is huge. The NBA doesn't have the same risks to take. Basketball doesn't lead to season ending injuries nearly as often

I don't know if that's true (that NBA doesn't have as many season ending injuries), but they do benefit from having the games in the off season obviously - something Bettman has requested from the IOC many times.

It's definitely true. Hockey players are far more susceptible to injury than Basketball players. I agree about the point about games in the off-season. But it is not practical to have the winter olympics in the summer unless it's in the southern hemisphere (which is impossible every olympics).

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON4. I don't expect the NHL to go again. These teams are fighting for a playoff spot tooth and nail and to take a risk without monetary compensation makes no sense.

Each team has this issue equally. There's no inherently greater risk for any one team. Garth's just being a bitch now that his player got hurt. Not that it matters this season.

I wasn't referring to just NYI or TOR or MTL. All NHL teams are in a playoff race all year long. Why should any franchise expose their players to such risk?

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLONBtw - the IOC pays the IIHF for every olympics. The NHL just doesn't see that money. So the IOC does pay for hockey.

IIHF may get a slice, but the individual olympians do not - which was my point.
I wouldn't be against the NHL requiring either the IIHF/IOC or the NHLPA to pay for insurance, but that should have been handled during the CBA negotiations.

The IIHF gets paid meaning the IOC shells out money for hockey. The NHL has to deal with 2 organizations. 1) Receive compensation from the IIHF and 2) receive compensation from the IOC. Or the IIHF gets a bigger chunk from which the NHL gets paid. It's the only way this economically makes sense. And the NHLers are a unique case among Olympians for sure. If the IOC is unwilling, then the NHL won't go again.

It's absurd for the NHL to expect compensation. They are the morons that let the players go.

blues wroteCOLONIt's absurd for the NHL to expect compensation. They are the morons that let the players go.

And because of this stance - which is likely shared by the IOC - the NHL will not be going in 2016. They went this time because of the CBA negotiations with the NHLPA who wanted it included. But 2016 is not.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

blues wroteCOLONIt's absurd for the NHL to expect compensation. They are the morons that let the players go.

And because of this stance - which is likely shared by the IOC - the NHL will not be going in 2016. They went this time because of the CBA negotiations with the NHLPA who wanted it included. But 2016 is not.

As a business, it's not in the NHL's best interest to go. The players love it, of course but Zetterberg, Barkov, Zuccarello, Tavares, etc. all getting hurt in the tournament are examples of why NHL owners absolutely hate the idea.

that's because NHL GMs only care about (their) short term interest, decisions should be made for the goods of the game, paying players doesn't mean OWNING them.

Think about clubs preventing players to go to the soccer World Cups lol

i'd rather not think about soccer at all.

Olympic hockey is bad. By the end of the tournament, there will be, at best, 4 games worth watching.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

blues wroteCOLONIt's absurd for the NHL to expect compensation. They are the morons that let the players go.

And because of this stance - which is likely shared by the IOC - the NHL will not be going in 2016. They went this time because of the CBA negotiations with the NHLPA who wanted it included. But 2016 is not.

I can 100% guarantee you they won't be going in 2016. In fact I'll bet you $1000

Tavares was the nail in the coffin

I can live with this being their last Olympics. There's no juice to playing in Korea.

I think the NHL players will keep going. I don't think it's bad business for the NHL - I think it's an insurance issue and nothing else. 'It's Business' doesn't begin & end with the single year pay checks/playoff revenue formula - this is big business, billions - it's a 10 year budget planning & forecasting practice - where future workforce, markets and social licence are real variables that are considered.


As long as the IOC allows pros to go I believe they will.