HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1277869)

Hugo Sham 10-31-2012 02:02 PM

Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners
 
if this is true, Frankly it's a joke. Teams like the Habs, Leafs, NYR, Canucks, etc should be in positions of power instead of being held hostage..apologies for my frustration...
Quote:

The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.

While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down).

This group is the biggest challenge for both the commissioner and the players.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-refrains.html


MOD: Title changed to say "speculates" vs "outs" since that's a bit misleading

SmellOfVictory 10-31-2012 02:11 PM

Someone needs the ability to go in and threaten to contract teams that are too hardline. The owners and players would all **** themselves and we might have a deal done within a couple of weeks.

Blueline Bomber 10-31-2012 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHill Seeker (Post 55422543)
if this is true, Frankly it's a joke. Teams like the Habs, Leafs, NYR, Canucks, etc should be in positions of power instead of being held hostage..apologies for my frustration...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-refrains.html

Why should the teams that aren't really losing money annually have the power to decide how to handle a situation where many teams ARE losing money annually?

cheswick 10-31-2012 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHill Seeker (Post 55422543)
if this is true, Frankly it's a joke. Teams like the Habs, Leafs, NYR, Canucks, etc should be in positions of power instead of being held hostage..apologies for my frustration...
Quote:

The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.

While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down).

This group is the biggest challenge for both the commissioner and the players.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-refrains.html


Of the 10 money makers there are a few hardliners and of the 10 middle guys there are a few that are softer so it evens out. Its a good bet that 2/3rd of the owners are firmly behind Bettman in getting a better deal.

optimus2861 10-31-2012 02:13 PM

The Habs haven't carried much clout at league HQ for a long time, really, and have a relatively new owner to boot. The Leafs new owners are busy making their umpteen hundreds of millions of dollars of profit every month running their real businesses and likely aren't overly concerned with NHL goings-on. The Rangers & Bettman have had spats in the past; it's unlikely that Dolan holds much sway with him any more, if he ever did.

Finlandia WOAT 10-31-2012 02:13 PM

Sadly, he offers no evidence to support his claim other than "some sources". Well, my sources told me specifically that Bettman and Fehr have already come to an agreement, and are just posturing so that they can get more out out of NBC.

haseoke39 10-31-2012 02:13 PM

Go those teams! Make the players take a deal that's comparable to other sports!

XX 10-31-2012 02:13 PM

I missed the part where Friedman gave any sort of evidence other than his best guess.

tantalum 10-31-2012 02:16 PM

Not being hardliners doesn't mean they are "will accept anything teams". Many of the not-so-hard liners likely have no issues with front loading etc etc etc but change the question to full linkage or not and all of a sudden thos no-so-hardliners become hard liners. That's what the PA has done so far...refuse full linkage. The PA in the end doesn't have to accept full linkage or ratify a deal that has full linkage in it, but they haven't even attempted to negotiate under the same financial framework of the expired CBA to see what such a deal would look like....despite saying they'd be happy playing under such a framework (which is of course just PR lies).

In the end the piece is really just a "I have nothing to write about so I'll just speculate."

Erik Estrada 10-31-2012 02:17 PM

And the Winners of the "How to make Friends and Influence People'' Award:

-''A group of hardline owners hope the players reject the current offer so they can push for a more restrictive financial system.''

Crease 10-31-2012 02:17 PM

Seems to be pure speculation on the part of the writer.

Elever 10-31-2012 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan The Parade (Post 55422783)
Sadly, he offers no evidence to support his claim other than "some sources". Well, my sources told me specifically that Bettman and Fehr have already come to an agreement, and are just posturing so that they can get more out out of NBC.

Friedman doesn't seem like a guy that desperate for attention or something to write about or someone who would just spew BS so yes he hasn't presented hard evidence but the fact that he's being specific in regards to teams indicates to me that there's something here and it's not complete speculation like it would be from me or you.

And how exactly are Phoenix hardliners? Washington in that group is a bit surprising but with the rest to me it seems like a huge conflict of interest since those are the teams that have been relying more on revenue sharing lately rather than bringing in revenue.

Morris Wanchuk 10-31-2012 02:20 PM

Jacobs is so cheap he sides with the have nots of the league. :laugh:

My name is Jeremy Jacobs, and I have a very good accountant. Look at all the money I lose, just like the low life teams of the league. Disregard the fact I own the team, building, and network, all under different corporations of course so I can make it look like the Bruins lose money every year.

thom 10-31-2012 02:22 PM

When Rene Leveque became premier in late 70's many of the top english Corporations left Quebec along with the nhl office in Montreal.Before 1980 Montreal was the finance center of canada.

KINGS17 10-31-2012 02:24 PM

Pure speculation by the author, but if true I have a suggestion for the owners that want to play.

SHARE MORE OF YOUR REVENUE!!! That is if the big revenue teams are the teams that want to play ASAP.

Lard_Lad 10-31-2012 02:25 PM

Focusing on those two paragraphs misses the point Friedman is making: there were similar rumours about a group of hardline owners taking an extreme stand shortly before the NBA got a deal done. The fact that we're hearing talk about them now (remember Kypreos the other day saying much the same thing) may be part of the NHL's PR gameplan.

rt 10-31-2012 02:28 PM

Phoenix? haha. That right there should kill any credibility this article has. How can Phoenix have "hardline" owners? Haha. We have NO OWNERS.

WinterEmpire 10-31-2012 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lard_Lad (Post 55423049)
Focusing on those two paragraphs misses the point Friedman is making: there were similar rumours about a group of hardline owners taking an extreme stand shortly before the NBA got a deal done. The fact that we're hearing talk about them now (remember Kypreos the other day saying much the same thing) may be part of the NHL's PR gameplan.

Wait, what does the NHL gain PR wise by having this information revealed? If anything it draws more hate towards those teams and owners.

santiclaws 10-31-2012 02:48 PM

Quote:

Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts on a conference call last week, courtesy Adweek: "I can tell you we're pretty disappointed with regard to the lockout. I don't think we should say a heck of a lot more. I think that we're just hopeful that the ownership and the players can get together and get on with the season." Comcast owns NBC and the Philadelphia Flyers.
That may be the most important tidbit in the whole article.

MXD 10-31-2012 03:02 PM

Speculation that makes sense remains speculation. Besides, Friedman doesn't try to make his column pass as the truth, so I don't see why people get all excited about this.

Mayor Bee 10-31-2012 03:21 PM

Columbus - has the 2013 All-Star Game
Islanders - plenty of excitement over the pending move to Brooklyn
Phoenix - may or may not finally be sold
St. Louis - new ownership
Florida - just made the playoffs for the first time in over a decade

Yeah, I'm sure all of those teams, or even some of them, are really looking forward to wiping out a season.

Jack de la Hoya 10-31-2012 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 55424029)
Columbus - has the 2013 All-Star Game
Islanders - plenty of excitement over the pending move to Brooklyn
Phoenix - may or may not finally be sold
St. Louis - new ownership
Florida - just made the playoffs for the first time in over a decade

Yeah, I'm sure all of those teams, or even some of them, are really looking forward to wiping out a season.

Well, to be fair, isn't it likely that, in the event the season is cancelled, CBJ gets the 2014 all star game, and the Islanders aren't moving this year anyway...

cutchemist42 10-31-2012 03:33 PM

So basically, mostly the markets Gary was responsible for introducing to the league, and the 1 team he has owned for 3 years......

Bourne Endeavor 10-31-2012 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya (Post 55424109)
Well, to be fair, isn't it likely that, in the event the season is cancelled, CBJ gets the 2014 all star game, and the Islanders aren't moving this year anyway...

Actually, no. If I recall either Philly or New Jersey has the 2014 all-star reserved and another team has it in 2015. Don't quote me on the specific teams but I certain TSN mentioned it would be a while before Columbus had a chance to host the all-star game again.

And since the Canucks were brought up. I imagine there is a sense of indifference for them. While a lost season impacts their cup chances. The team has been banged up a little too much. Right now we are looking to have Kesler back when the season starts, be it in January or October 2013.

SJeasy 10-31-2012 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rt (Post 55423083)
Phoenix? haha. That right there should kill any credibility this article has. How can Phoenix have "hardline" owners? Haha. We have NO OWNERS.

If it is Jamison that they are attributing to Phoenix, he is a hawk. Pre-Golisano ownership in Buffalo was hawkish as was Florida ownership of 5 years ago.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.