A Look at the NHL's Lockout History and Hope Next CBA Won't Require Another 

Imagine if they expand that year and there's a lockout.

Unpopular Opinion: Bettman and the lockouts are a big reason why teams like Ottawa, Buffalo, LA and Pittsburg haven't relocated or folded. 76% of revenue in 2003 was going to the players, and the NHLPA couldn't agree to change the average NHL contract from 1.8M a year to 1.2M. We can blame owners for being "greedy", but if salaries take so much revenue from teams that they end up filing for bankruptcy, both the teams and the players lose out. Kinda hard to get paid when your employer has to close the doors because they overpaid on labour costs.... From 1992-2003 in a TEN year span, there were FOUR teams that filed for bankruptcy in the NHL, Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and LA... Do you know how many teams filed for bankruptcy in the other 3 major sports in FIFTY years???? Baseball: 2. Football: 1. Basketball: 0. The NHL had a very messy time with budgeting for teams before Bettman came in. Bettman saved this League from financial turmoil. I understand that losing out on a year of hockey sucks, but it's better to lose a year than to lose an entire League due to financial issues And BTW writeoffs for losses on a business only goes so far and for so many quarters of being a loss. Most teams in lower Leagues don't stay around after 5-10 years of financial losses. Billionaires only take so many financial losses before they cut ties. They're not too stupid to go broke over a sunken cost fallacy.

@@deecee2174 Yeah. I have some problems with Bettman, like most do, but he's done a good job overall to be honest.

​@@deecee2174Every communist says "they prefer to lose money, they're billionaires" 😂😂😂 Glad you included that part

Team owners deserve to make money over the players. People will always want to play pro hockey regardless of salary, but if the teams go bankrupt, there will no longer be pro hockey for players to play. Nylander took that 11 million dollar deal and quit trying. That's 11 million dollars that other employees of the organization could have gotten. There are loads of employees in an organization, they all need to be paid as well as players. People often overlook this side of it.

@@deecee2174 Although the NBA didn't have bankruptcies, they had 4-5 teams that had to relocate due to finances. BUT I still agree with your overall argument. I think Bettman needs to go though. He's kept the league intact and financially sustainable but it hasn't really grown the way other leagues have in terms of revenue stream. There needs to be a new way of thinking and Bettman's approach is actually limiting the NHL.

Same. It's not the owners who are entertaining me, it's the players, and these guys sacrifice their bodies do it. I think the players SHOULD get more of the money than the owners. I don't give a shit about the owners (and since I live in Phoenix, I'll let you make your own conclusions about how I feel about the local ex-owner in particular).

@@iagmusicandflying Lol NHL players were getting 76% of revenue before the 04 lockout; the highest percentage of revenue going to salary in the Major 4 North American Sports And ok, let's say that players get paid more than owners... Are the players also gonna help cover labour costs? Building overhead? Taxes for the land the Stadium is on? The accountants that calculate the accounts payable and receivable? Lawyers to handle franchise issues and lawsuits? There's a reason why owners get paid more than players. They got more bills to pay and more risk to take on... If the team folds, the player can go play elsewhere at no loss; but the Owner has to hold the bag and lose hundreds of millions

@@deecee2174 can always count on someone to kiss the ultra-rich ass. The players risk THEIR LIVES. Rich people risk money. I'll wait while you explain how that's more important.

​@@iagmusicandflyingthey aren't, but also, no one forces them to play.

@@csolivais1979 and nobody forces team owners to buy a franchise either.

So do i vince..... my team was LOCKED OUT due to LA winning the cup before the work stoppage happened.

That was 2012-13

@@DragonmasterAlex Actually The 2012-13 NHL Lockout Happened Not The 2011-12 NHL Season!

@dvon1097 Actually The 2012-13 Short Season Lockout Happened Besides the 1994-95 Lockout and The 2004-05 Lockout Not in 2011-12!

The league is never transparent with the players, why would that be any different?

​@KWally how are they not transparent?

No matter the industry, negotiations & especially agreements are not done to the last minute. Just the way the world is.

Would *have*

@@winkletown8828 You must have a Hell-uv-a Time policing the Bad Grammar on the internet Mr. Winkleton.....well its summer and school is out so just put me down for an F for F-off!

The 2004-05 Lockout Was Worse Then The 1994-95 and 2012-13 Lockout Seasons But Hopefully There’s Not Another One in 2026!

The 04-05 lockout saved the NHL. It corrected the massive imbalance that sent 70%+ of revenue to player salaries, and it ushered in long-overdue rule changes that opened up the game.

@@gablefisk-govphost817 Yup and The NHL Lockout in 2004-05 Made Lots of Fans Mad For Some Odd Reason!

@@vinceniederman Did they come back?

@@gablefisk-govphost817 They Did The Next Season!

And they need to expand to London. UK, not Ontario.

It still limits how much money a player can ask for, which keeps players from making the amount of money that they're worth. Now you know why the owners wanted a cap, because they want to underpay players.

I really don't think it has. It's just been about the same few teams winning each half decade or so.

Parody

When the next CBA negotiations happen, remember these 2 things: 1)Ticket price will go up, no matter the results of the negotiations. The increase rate is not related to team's expenses, it's related to how much they think they can get away with. 2) Team's yearly bottom line is mostly irrelevant. What's important to the owners is the team valuation. This has shown to be their greatest gain, no matter the team. Moruelo and Melnyk bought their team for around 100m (IIRC) and sold for a billion. That's the real money. And to answer your final question, as the population grows, the attendance becomes less relevant. They don't really care who can afford to go to the game, as long as there are other streams of income. Adds, TV deals, merchandise are all part of that. All other leagues rely less on attendance, and hockey is going that way.

Why would he have gotten fired? You do know he is a paid employee, just like just about everyone else who has a job.

I agree with everything you’ve said until you got to Ken Holland when you called him a wizard of 90s drafting. There’s a lot you got wrong. For one he didn’t get the GM job until July 1997 so he only took place in the 1998 and 1999 draft. Only 2 names of note on that list. Datsyuk and Zetterberg. The only credit I give Holland is listening to Hakan Andersson and taking these guys as a late round pick. Jiri Fischer was good as well but unfortunately had his career shortened. Still a European player and scouted by Andersson. So no he was never a wizard at 90s drafting. Ken Holland literally has said himself that he credits his success to Andersson as well as some of the other scouts which I agree with. He wasn’t able to keep up a good prospect pool because he kept trading draft picks away and prospects to other teams for players to keep the playoff streak alive. It’s a huge part of the reason that the Redwings were so horrible at the end of the 2010s and beginning of the 2020s and the team still has more to go before it can be considered a true contender. Also don’t even get me started on Hollands absolutely abysmal contract signings. I mean we are still paying for Abdelkaders dead cap for a contract he never should have even got. Like it’s actually one of the worst contracts in probably the whole NHL.

You are asking the salary cap to fix something it was not mentioned to fix. It was only for one thing that it was started and that was to provide owners cost certainty.

They do. There is a bonus for players that is based on how far they go in the playoffs…

Here is the breakdown of the playoff money and how it is distributed: Presidents’ Trophy winner - $500,000 First-round losers - $2 million ($250,000 each to eight teams) Second-round losers - $2 million ($500,000 each to four teams) Conference final losers - $2.5 million ($1.25 million each to two teams) Stanley Cup Finalist - $2.25 million Stanley Cup Champion - $3.75 million

Oh just like now? San Jose was a NHL roster in name only this year. With some heavy bottom feeders. While the others simply dominated this season barring injury.

@@harper-leightonscott4566 Because they are in a rebuild? That's how the modern NHL works. Ideally, you're bad for a few years so that you can be good for a long period of time. You think San Jose is going to stay at the bottom for another decade? Not likely. The only teams that have been consistently bad for a decade or more right now (Buffalo and Arizona) have been so due to their own poor management. Other teams like Edmonton and New Jersey, who had long periods of failure, have found relative success. Without a salary cap LA, Chicago, New York, Toronto, etc would be at the top consistently. Yet all of those teams have gone through rebuilds/retools in the last decade. So what is your point? Yes, every year there will be a handful of teams that are bottom-feeders and borderline AHL teams, but it is a natural part of the process. In 5 years, it is highly unlikely that any team in the bottom 5 this year will still be there.

@@ianspottiswood2419 that's my entire point. That's how the league works in general there's less bad teams now back in the day that primarily due to expansion. But that doesn't stop bad teams from being bad and good teams from being good. My guy LaA, Chicago, New York, and Toronto is consistently at the top. Their financial status allows them to enter a rebuild less often than any of their competitors. and that's ignoring the role of management. Because when's the last time Boston underwent a rebuild of any kind. The salary cap doesn't really fix the parity issue like everyone claims. It just slightly quickens the pre salary cap competitive process.

@@harper-leightonscott4566 yeah, although Chicago/Montreal/Detroit have been bad for many years now. While teams like Carolina, Florida, Dallas, and Tampa have dominated the League for 4-5 years. Where do they factor in? As for a team like Boston, they’ve been good due to a strong team culture. Look at their roster this year. Outside of Marchand, McAvoy, and Pasta (and the goalies) they have a pretty mid roster. They’ve just outworked their opponents most nights. Hence how they beat Toronto, a team loaded with superstars. The salaries of the players have nothing to do with their success.

Exactly and The 2004-05 NHL Lockout Was Worse Then The 1994-95 NHL Lockout!

@@vinceniederman agreed. The 2004-05 one could have easily been avoided.

@@OilersFanReaction1 But Nope I Still Hate Gary To This Day As a Flyers Fan!

Why do you think weather or not Gary is the commissioner have anything to do with a lockout? Sorry, but whoever is the commissioner is going to do what the owners tell them to do.

@@csolivais1979 We Know He’s in Charge of The NHL Since He’s The Commissioner and Hopefully There’s No Lockout in 2026!

The NHL didn't want another game played at the Mullett. The land auction might not go to Meruelo at all. Now that the Coyotes have moved, other people who want the land are more likely to bid without worrying that they cost the city their hockey team. They couldn't stay in the Mullett until 2027 which was the likely earliest opening date for a new arena. If the Coyotes didn't have 30 years of failing to find an arena before this, I might agree. The fact is, they never had an arena that worked and locals seem to loathe Alex Meruelo.

@@TheHockeyGuy Couldn't of stayed? I think if the building is there to be built I think the NHL could've "suffered" (and I use that term sarcastically) a few more years in the Mullet which from what I heard was great place to watch hockey. Look at Ottawa. They need a new building but people are still showing up despite half the city is immigrants (I used to live in East Ottawa and I swear I met more people from the Middle East than I did Canadians)

No, the players were DONE with the Mullett. Coyotes players felt the novelty wore off in year two and wanted out. 4600 maximum isn't an NHL arena, not even close. Utah will have a full barn of 12,000+ next season and beyond. Ottawa's a team turning a profit and had good attendance last season. You're ignoring that there is no guarantee of winning the land auction and they had no plan C, since the land auction was plan B following the failure to get a building in Tempe. It had to end.

@@TheHockeyGuy That;s what I mean by saying either win the auction or leave. I personally dont support the players etc (eat the rich and all that) but Arizona despite a lot of people saying "its only snowbirds going to games" IS one of the growing areas for hockey esp with Leafs fans thx to Matthews and Knies.

@@mannyoliveira776 Not what I'd wish...

That’s why I propose the actual cities or metropolitan areas should own NHL teams, so every taxpayer living there gets partial ownership (since they end up paying for a lot of the arena costs)... Plus, that would make relocation out of NHL cities more difficult due to the fans (who wouldn't care as much about profits) being actively involved in the process...

Maybe. But the owners won't care. They know the players won't wait forever to make a deal.

It's the lowest salaries because it generates the least amount of money.

Northern Italy, Milan and Verona

The NHL splits revenues 50-50 with the union. The NHL made 6.2 billion this season off the backs of the players. They deserve every penny that they make.