HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   I see that the owners are suddenly hot to make a deal (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=132507)

True Blue 03-02-2005 10:30 AM

I see that the owners are suddenly hot to make a deal
 
Must be tough to attract sponsorship these days. Must be even thougher to imagine pi$$ing away $70, in revenue that they cannot afford if ESPN does not pick up it's option. And let's be realistic, while I am certainly not privy to ESPN management discussions, but one cannot imagine a scenario of scab hockey being nationally televised.
Bettman suddenly is not speaking so tough. Don't get me wrong, I do not think it is becuase he suddenly found a soft side or becuase he suddenly has the desire to have a deal that does not include a soft cap. But now it is the owners turn to feel pressure. They are the ones who will face lack of sponsors, lack of season tickets being sold, and lack of luxury box sales (let's face it, who is going to buy skybox seats to watch scabs?). And, no matter how tough they still want to sound by saying that scabs are an option and that the league WILL play hockey inthe fall, with or without the NHLPA, one has to assume that the owners are not morons. They cannot run a league on scab labor.
Much as I want for there to be hockey (no matter who wins), if I am the players, I give the owners the same treatment that Bettman gave to the NHLPA. Make the owners "reflect". The NHLPA made the last offer. Make Bettman make the next one.
But to hear the owners talk about replacement players is utterly laughable. NO ONE is coming to see them. No sponsors are going to sign up for replacement players. No season tickets are going to be sold (unless the ownes suddenly want to have a buy one season ticket, get 4 free type sale) for scabs. ESPN will never televise scabs.
Yeah, I want a deal and I want hockey (no matter who wins). I will probably be back if they start next season on time (probably not if they are stupid enough to cancel 2 seasons.....don't know about if they only have half a season). But if I am the players, I call the owners bluff if the owners do not come off the $42.5 hard cap. Compromise at $45, yes. But not at that amount. Call their bluff. Make the owners first try to get an impasse. At that point, I almost hope that Bettman is allowed to have it. Then I call their bluff and make the owners proceed with scabs. If they think they lost money before...........

barrel_master 03-02-2005 10:55 AM

I agree that the owners are feeling the pressure from sponsors and ESPN but the players must be feeling the same pressue. Even if there was a 'free market' system in place the players would loose a great deal from sponsors as well (in terms of non-nhl pay and their normal salaries).

But I would like to ask one question... how would no hockey at all be any worse then having replacement players come in?

Thank you kindly for you time.

NYIsles1* 03-02-2005 11:04 AM

There is pressure on both sides, there always has been. Owners cannot go up on the 42.5 million offer and after now having to refund season ticket revenue may not even be able to offer that anymore. Even before this the NHLPA never made 45 million a viable option. It's 49 million with two exepmtions to 53.9 million, with no cost certainty but they want a higher cap if the product produces profits.

Once this goes past a draft, july free agency and all the basic things a league needs to produce revenues for next season forget anything close to the league's last offer.

The players are going to reflect themselves right out of business because the bottom line is going down for everyone. If there is urgency here it should be by everyone on both sides out of common sense.

It seems the fans for the most part are behind ownership, they may not want replacement players but will be supportive if it's a means to an end of breaking a very unpopular union that has not been realistic about this business or it's finances.

I think your kidding yourself if you think players are not going to cross the line if the owners open camps with replacement players.

True Blue 03-02-2005 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
It seems the fans for the most part are behind ownership, they may not want replacement players but will be supportive if it's a means to an end of breaking a very unpopular union that has not been realistic about this business or it's finances.

I utterly disagree with the above statement. Every single poll and every single phone call into sports radio and every single email into internet chats suggests that no matter who the fans back, NHLPA or owners, they are NOT going to be supportive of a scab league. While, yes, you have some bleeding hearts who beat their chests and state that they root for the jersey and not the names, the ovewhelming majority of fans will not support scab players. Even on this board, there were 2 polls. One showed that most of posters support the owners (posters from everywhere) and another showed those same fans not being supportive of scabs.
And while we are talking about fans not supporting "a very unpopular union", most of those fans also do not support a very unpopular commisioner.

"I think your kidding yourself if you think players are not going to cross the line if the owners open camps with replacement players. "

And I think that you are kidding yourself if you think that watching a few disruntled 4th line waiver scrubs and ECHLers is going to attract fans. NO ONE is going to watch scab hockey. Oh, there will be a few, but not nearly enough to run an entire league on. Scab hockey playes right into the NHLPA's hands. Go ahead, open the season with scabs. I am one of those hard-core fans. And, no matter who wins, will come back next year (personally for me, only if they open on time)But I, and MANY, MANY others will not spend one penny, watch one second, or read one blurb if there are scabs involved. You are fooling yourself if you think that fans will support scabs simply to help the owners.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 03-02-2005 11:22 AM

I have pretty much sided with the players but, I'm tired of arguing who's to blame. I just want my games back. What bothers me is I see the same lack of urgency now that I did in September. And I have to say that as of right now, NEXT season is very much in doubt. Owners players, screw 'em both. There is a sport that needs saving and fast.

Bottom line: If and when this thing is ever resolved, I hope that neither Goodenow nor Bettman have a job.

oldtimer 03-02-2005 11:53 AM

No to Scabs
 
Its pretty hard to find a more hard-core Ranger fan than me. Had there been a season, this would have been my 39th consecutive year as a season subscriber (dating back to the old Garden). I miss them terribly. I may even have attended a majority of Ranger home games in their history. BUT, if they try to sell me a team of scabs, I don't buy this coming year. (but I'll probably still watch them on TV).

Toonces 03-02-2005 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Bottom line: If and when this thing is ever resolved, I hope that neither Goodenow nor Bettman have a job.

Absolutely...

They all are to blame, just get a deal done.

NYIsles1* 03-02-2005 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Even on this board, there were 2 polls. One showed that most of posters support the owners (posters from everywhere) and another showed those same fans not being supportive of scabs..

We did our poll also and the majority supported the use of replacement players and sided with ownership. Either way polls usually reflect die-hard fans, and polls on HF are not the beginning or end of fan opinion.

But what does it tell you when most people support the owners?

It tells me they are going to support owners in what they think has to be done to fix hockey's financial problems including bringing in replacement players because under the old system things did not work.

This has been a negotation where the pa has offered a rollback and a cap, they even acknowledges there is problems with this business, unfortunately they have not gone far enough down with a cap yet that comes close to addressing the problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
And while we are talking about fans not supporting "a very unpopular union", most of those fans also do not support a very unpopular commisioner...

Granted. I think Bettman happened to be here when a lot of things caught up with hockey, starting with the development of players and equipment that clearly change hockey and the amount of room on the ice that really go beyond his control. If you want to blame him for not having answers or willing to make major changes for that earlier so be it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
And I think that you are kidding yourself if you think that watching a few disruntled 4th line waiver scrubs and ECHLers is going to attract fans. NO ONE is going to watch scab hockey. Oh, there will be a few, but not nearly enough to run an entire league on. Scab hockey playes right into the NHLPA's hands. Go ahead, open the season with scabs. I am one of those hard-core fans. And, no matter who wins, will come back next year (personally for me, only if they open on time)But I, and MANY, MANY others will not spend one penny, watch one second, or read one blurb if there are scabs involved. You are fooling yourself if you think that fans will support scabs simply to help the owners.

And MANY, MANY others will.

There are star players in this league that cannot help themselves and are likely going to cross sooner than later. That's how this worked with the NFL and how it will happen with the NHL. These are players taking jobs from others in Europe without a second thought.

I think fans are going to support it for three primary reasons:
1-They want to see hockey and their teams, regardless of who is wearing the uniform. Lockout or not players always will come and go and fans root for lanudry.
2-They miss hockey so much they will accept anything resembling it.
3-Supporting replacement players serves as a means to an end of this lockout, forces a financial system on the PA that makes the overall product stronger, not weaker and should make more money for the business in the long run by spreading talent and veterans to all markets.

Slewfoot 03-02-2005 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I have pretty much sided with the players but, I'm tired of arguing who's to blame. I just want my games back. What bothers me is I see the same lack of urgency now that I did in September. And I have to say that as of right now, NEXT season is very much in doubt. Owners players, screw 'em both. There is a sport that needs saving and fast.

Bottom line: If and when this thing is ever resolved, I hope that neither Goodenow nor Bettman have a job.

I agree completely. It is way past the point of determining a 'winner' and 'loser'. The bottom line IMO is that both sides failed and the sport will suffer. Your point about a lack of urgency is right on.

FLYLine24 03-02-2005 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I have pretty much sided with the players but, I'm tired of arguing who's to blame. I just want my games back. What bothers me is I see the same lack of urgency now that I did in September. And I have to say that as of right now, NEXT season is very much in doubt. Owners players, screw 'em both. There is a sport that needs saving and fast.

Bottom line: If and when this thing is ever resolved, I hope that neither Goodenow nor Bettman have a job.

:handclap:

SingnBluesOnBroadway 03-02-2005 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
But what does it tell you when most people support the owners?

It tells me that most people don't understand what's really happening.

It's easy to put the blame on millionaires who play a game for a living. It's easy to buy into the "small market teams can't compete" propoganda. And it's easy to buy into Bettman's P.R. machine that has been going non stop since Andreychuk lifted the Cup.

True Blue 03-02-2005 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
I think fans are going to support it for three primary reasons:
1-They want to see hockey and their teams, regardless of who is wearing the uniform. Lockout or not players always will come and go and fans root for lanudry.
2-They miss hockey so much they will accept anything resembling it.
3-Supporting replacement players serves as a means to an end of this lockout, forces a financial system on the PA that makes the overall product stronger, not weaker and should make more money for the business in the long run by spreading talent and veterans to all markets.

I think you are 100% wrong in your assesment here. We may just have to agree to disagree.
1. Yes, fans want to see hockey again, but they level of hockey that will be presented to them under a scab league will make the last several years look like 80's Edmonton Oilers. Fans are not coming to see Jeff Toms be a 1st line center with Rob Ray as his wing..
Saying "And MANY, MANY others will.", does not tell the whole story. San Jose tried to get their AHL team into the Tank and see what happens. They even had discounted tickets and parking passes. They filled up about 35%. Point is hockey does not have all that many fans that it can afford to loose ANY.
2. You give hockey fans FAR too little credit. Yes, we miss hockey. But to say that we "miss it so much they will accept anything resembling it.", is an utter falsity and not doing us justice. Yes, we miss it. No chance of us watching en masse the crap that will dare call itself hockey players if a scab league is in place. Fans realize that most of these would have never been allowed anywhere near an NHL rink under normal contiditions. Please do no insult us as being so desperate that we will do whatever is necessary. This is hockey, not cocaine.
3. No matter what you say the reasons for supporting scabs are, the bottom line is that there will be no support for it. No one was coming to watch the stars, yet they will flock to see scabs? Please. A scab league will be played with no national coverage and barely any sponsors. No one is going to buy season tickets to watch them. We may be different in whom we support (NHLPA or Bettman), but we are not sheep.

Levitate 03-02-2005 12:31 PM

i too kind of have to take issue with the assertion that fans are desperate for hockey and will watch anything...lots of people have replaced NHL hockey with college hockey, AHL hockey, even ECHL hockey. some have just replaced it altogether.

if they manage to get it televised, i imagine a fair amount of people will watch just based on idle curiosity alone, but i don't think all that many people will actually pay ticket prices to watch the games in person. and i know i won't be watching at all, it'd be a complete farce to see scrubs dressed up pretending to be hockey players. that's not NHL hockey, that's a disgrace. while i may put the sweater over the players in terms of players coming and going through trades, FA, etc...I can't put sweaters over the players when it comes to what the league is actually made up of. I watch the NHL because it's the best league in the world. if there are a bunch of ECHL players out there pretending to be rangers, i don't want to see it, it's an embarassment and an insult

NYIsles1* 03-02-2005 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
It tells me that most people don't understand what's really happening.

What's really happening? The business is losing money, the so-called large markets are all losing money outside of Toronto and the game is struggling in every way possible on and off the ice. One sides knows changes must happen, the other is only interested in it's players making top dollar even if it means reducing all of the basis revenues the sport can make to spite themselves in the end.

Owners esculated these contracts, they created this market. No player should ever have refused top dollar, but that's over. Things now must change and a new economic system is required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
It's easy to put the blame on millionaires who play a game for a living. It's easy to buy into the "small market teams can't compete" propoganda. And it's easy to buy into Bettman's P.R. machine that has been going non stop since Andreychuk lifted the Cup.

The blame goes with everyone equally for the past because folks on both sides knew this was coming. The owners know the business and what has to happen to keep it viable, the NHLPA just seems to want no part of that reality at this time.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 03-02-2005 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
What's really happening? The business is losing money, the so-called large markets are all losing money outside of Toronto and the game is struggling in every way possible on and off the ice. One sides knows changes must happen, the other is only interested in it's players making top dollar even if it means reducing all of the basis revenues the sport can make to spite themselves in the end.

Owners esculated these contracts, they created this market. No player should ever have refused top dollar, but that's over. Things now must change and a new economic system is required.

Whatever on ice problems the game has are not going to be solved by a lock out.

But that's the point. The owners helped create this mess and have been unwilling to budge one bit. It's almost like they're acting that these large salaries just happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
The blame goes with everyone equally for the past because folks on both sides knew this was coming. The owners know the business and what has to happen to keep it viable, the NHLPA just seems to want no part of that reality at this time.

Sure the blame goes to everyone equally (read my first post in this thread). The point is, Bettman has spent more time "villainising" the players than he has trying solve this problem. And that is going to affect popular opinion. So I stand by my original point that I believe the fact the majority favor the owners is based in large part because (1) they have bought into Bettman's spin machine, (2) its easier to side with the owners, (3) there are larger issues than the players simply wanting to make as much as possible.

ATLANTARANGER* 03-02-2005 01:41 PM

Let me throw in my 2 cents. I think both LI & NJ are classic examples of what is wrong with the NHL. Neither team draws. Yet both teams are on the cusp of the largest market in the world. Why is that? The situation is what it is because the market for hockey, even in the world largest market, is over saturated. There is a finite number of hockey fans.

Fans complain that prices are high and yes they are and that is the reason given by their fans as to why those 2 teams don't draw. I got news for you, even with a 24% reduction in salaries, tickets were not going to go down.
They aren't even going down 5%. Both areas in which the 2 teams draw their fans from are in the richest areas of this country. The per captia income on LI and NJ are in the tops of this country.

I understand there are die hard fans of both teams, but they are small in number. If hockey can not support 3 teams in the metro ny area, it certainly can not support hockey in many of the southern, non traditonal markets. Over expansion, which can only be laid at bettman's feet and no one else is the sole source to all the problems.
With the talent spread out so thin the competition for the acquisition of that talent is fierce and as a result the players get larger offers. Teams pay more, they charge more, it is all a domino effect.

JR#9* 03-02-2005 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
What's really happening? The business is losing money, the so-called large markets are all losing money outside of Toronto and the game is struggling in every way possible on and off the ice. One sides knows changes must happen, the other is only interested in it's players making top dollar even if it means reducing all of the basis revenues the sport can make to spite themselves in the end.

.

Why not simply make the suggestion as you did on the buisness board that we should simply contract the BIG market teams such as the NYR's, Philly, Detroit, Toronto and the Av's....... :lol: and how this will make for a much better NHL after the dust settles!! :lol :dunce:

ATLANTARANGER* 03-02-2005 02:05 PM

If I'm the players I sit and wait.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Must be tough to attract sponsorship these days. Must be even thougher to imagine pi$$ing away $70, in revenue that they cannot afford if ESPN does not pick up it's option. And let's be realistic, while I am certainly not privy to ESPN management discussions, but one cannot imagine a scenario of scab hockey being nationally televised.
Bettman suddenly is not speaking so tough. Don't get me wrong, I do not think it is becuase he suddenly found a soft side or becuase he suddenly has the desire to have a deal that does not include a soft cap. But now it is the owners turn to feel pressure. They are the ones who will face lack of sponsors, lack of season tickets being sold, and lack of luxury box sales (let's face it, who is going to buy skybox seats to watch scabs?). And, no matter how tough they still want to sound by saying that scabs are an option and that the league WILL play hockey inthe fall, with or without the NHLPA, one has to assume that the owners are not morons. They cannot run a league on scab labor.
Much as I want for there to be hockey (no matter who wins), if I am the players, I give the owners the same treatment that Bettman gave to the NHLPA. Make the owners "reflect". The NHLPA made the last offer. Make Bettman make the next one.
But to hear the owners talk about replacement players is utterly laughable. NO ONE is coming to see them. No sponsors are going to sign up for replacement players. No season tickets are going to be sold (unless the ownes suddenly want to have a buy one season ticket, get 4 free type sale) for scabs. ESPN will never televise scabs.
Yeah, I want a deal and I want hockey (no matter who wins). I will probably be back if they start next season on time (probably not if they are stupid enough to cancel 2 seasons.....don't know about if they only have half a season). But if I am the players, I call the owners bluff if the owners do not come off the $42.5 hard cap. Compromise at $45, yes. But not at that amount. Call their bluff. Make the owners first try to get an impasse. At that point, I almost hope that Bettman is allowed to have it. Then I call their bluff and make the owners proceed with scabs. If they think they lost money before...........

The NLRB is not going to declare an impasse. I want the league to use scabs. Hockey will not get back on track until Bettman, a non hockey person is gone. Scabs will be a huge black eye for the NHL. It will be a disaster of unparalleled proportion. I feel really sorry for the fan who will invest not only their money, but their emotional ties to an endeavor like that. It is the ultimate slap in the face to the loyal fan. What they don't get is the owners are saying, "see, we know your a class A patsy and we can put garbage on the ice and you idiots will still pay!"

Fans who do view this objectively are the one's that Bettman's PR machine has hooked, hook, line and sucker, I mean sinker!
There was an article on one of the other HF boards about Boobie Clarke. It illistrated the depths to which the NHL owners went to when the NHLPA was 1st formed. The truly interesting part of the article about the feds not only investigating Eagelston, but Zeigler and Wirtz. Now why would the feds be interested in 2 NHL officials who were not part of the NHLPA?

Also, no one has spoken of brooks article in the post, about the NHL's revenue sharing farce, I mean program. They are still screwing each other. They, the owners come out with all this "we are family" crap, meet behind close doors, no cameras, the NHLPA has their meetings and there are film crews in the meeting room.
Now which side do you think has something to hide?
Ever notice that bettman sometimes switches, shakes like he has parkinson's or something? Well when he does that, you know he is lying. He doesn't do it when he is telling the truth. when he is talking about a subject matter that you know is true.

Levitate 03-02-2005 03:32 PM

Quote:

One sides knows changes must happen, the other is only interested in it's players making top dollar even if it means reducing all of the basis revenues the sport can make to spite themselves in the end.
it's this kind of thing that gets on my nerves...

look, we honestly know very little about the whole situation, we get fed media tidbits, we pick our sides and defend them like it's personal...but get real for a moment. I think the NHLPA has acknowledged changes ultimately need to be made, just because you don't agree with their proposals doesn't mean they are unwilling to do anything to improve the leagues financial health. passing this off as "the owners care and are awesome! and the players are greedy and don't care about the sport!" is tiresome and at the least, very very simple.

do we truly know enough to say what would work and what wouldn't? do we have the books in front of us and the knowledge of accounting, economics, etc, to be able to break down the proposals and calculate what is needed? no, we don't.

bah, i don't even know where i'm going with this anymore...in the end both sides are all about maximizing their profits. that's how it is, there's nothing noble on either side.

Levitate 03-02-2005 03:43 PM

actually i'll add this...both sides want to maximize profits but i'll expand "profits" beyond just $$

this is completely just my opinion, but i think if this thing was purely about money, it'd actually get done a lot faster and easier. but i think a large part of it has to do with power (more power = more profit)

power over the issues like arbitration, free agency, etc. power over the other side. the owners seem to feel that the players had the power for the last CBA and they want to take that power back in a bad way. on the players side, they sure as hell don't want to give the league any power...so you're stuck with two sides struggling against each other and unwilling to bend because they're afraid the other side will gain an advantage and subjugate them.

Fletch 03-02-2005 04:30 PM

NY Isles...
 
you did a poll, and that's fine. We too did a poll and most side with the owners. But in the end, it doesn't matter who anybody signs with. The NHL has had problems getting people to come to certain arenas, even with the likes of names like Jagr, Kovalchuk, etc. Imagine what it would look like with scabs? You say players would cross...I believe that hockey is not football, baseball or basketball, and should be treated as such and the Commissioner, owners, players and Goodenow should recognize this. The players still want to make tens of millions of dollars. [some] Owners want to make 3 times that. The Commissioner wants to expand like the rest, going to whatever city pays the most. They need to both wake up and realize what this sport is.

The already empty arenas will be even more empty with scabs. The casual fan, the one on which the league relies on to spend $200 for a family of four, isn't likely to come out, as these guys know names, be it Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, or whomever. They cannot market marquee players, let alone scab players.

The players would be crazy to cross any line as a league of scabs would likely be, in my opinion, an utter disaster. Sponsorship (call it Bud, call it ESPN) isn't going to line up for scabs, and both the owners and players, I believe, know this. Fans aren't going to pay $80-150 for a lower level seat. They aren't going to pay $15-$40 for upper level seats. The teams that are suffering and do not own their own arena would be better off being shut down. That situation, in my opinion, weighs heavily for the owners to bring back players. Their best bargaining option is to remaing closed.

Fletch 03-02-2005 04:33 PM

Levitate...
 
it is purely about money. The players want the owners to feel free to pay them as much as they want, and some owners want to be restricted in what they can pay, and others also want those same owners to be restricted in order for them to compete. One area in which they fall down in is that some areas may be able to compete talent-wise, but the supposition is that they'll have a competitive team every year, which is pure hogwash. Sorry, but under the most stringent of CBAs, you will have your basement dwellers who are out of it by January. If that's Anaheim, LA, Carolina or Nashville, people still may not show up to the arena.

Fletch 03-02-2005 04:42 PM

Another thing NY Isles..
 
I do find it hard to believe that the big market teams, outside of Toronto, are losing money. Someone's making money. Yeah, New York really accounted for 20% of the league's purported losses. Do you really believe that? Cablevision's accountants don't, so I don't expect anybody else. Other hockey operations lose money, but one needs to consider that if you own the building too, that it should be viewed as one entity. Vancouver seemed to make decent money the last two seasons. Jersey's not really complaining too much and has seen their costs escalate at a high rate and they've gone with it. Boston makes money and seems to have no problems signing a guy like Lapointe for $5 million per.

Overally, the business is losing money. If you dug down, it's not as much as one would think. Further, you don't think the players recognize this? They offered a 24% rollback, first of all. Do you think players who are 39-40 years old, and are giving up a million + $$$ would ever see that money again? I think that's the first sign of recognition of a problem. Second, in the end, they did acquiesce to a salary cap. There are conditions for it, of course, but the cap is another recognition. We cannot say here with confidence what the deal should be. So many people say that the owners offered $42.5 million and that should be enough. some of those same people thought that $31-35 was enough. Whatever. Bettman's reasoning for not raising the bar was utterly ridiculous - 'what if every team spent that amount...'? That's quite possible the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Somehow hockey survived with a range of payrolls from $22-$80 million...could it not survive $30 million-$50 million? And that's a range...the averge payroll falls somewhere in between there. It's crazy.

NYIsles1* 03-02-2005 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
I do find it hard to believe that the big market teams, outside of Toronto, are losing money. Someone's making money. Yeah, New York really accounted for 20% of the league's purported losses. Do you really believe that?

What do you want me to write? The empty seats, the high payroll, the poor television ratings, the limited media attention in baseballs largest market in the country with those rivalries? Brooks article yesterday had the Rangers revenue at 85 million, the payroll was close to 80 million most of last season. It's a big sports market but a very small hockey market now with ticket prices and cable rates high enough to keep people away. The articles and industry sources in several papers confirm the Ranger losses between 25-40 million, it's not only Levitt.

It's also very consistent with the losses Philadelphia, Dallas, Detroit, St.Louis claim with their numbers some in more modern facilities going to the playoffs and consistent with profits teams like the Wild make low payroll and excellent attendance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
Vancouver seemed to make decent money the last two seasons. Jersey's not really complaining too much and has seen their costs escalate at a high rate and they've gone with it.

Vancouver makes the best reported profit at 25m with a lower payroll in a modern facility. Lamoriello has said several times he cannot work with this system and the Devil owners have claimed losses every year since moving to New Jersey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
Overally, the business is losing money. If you dug down, it's not as much as one would think. Further, you don't think the players recognize this? They offered a 24% rollback, first of all. Do you think players who are 39-40 years old, and are giving up a million + $$$ would ever see that money again? I think that's the first sign of recognition of a problem. Second, in the end, they did acquiesce to a salary cap.

To be honest if I dug down and we had an NHL season revenue would be down even more from 2003-04 with the lower Espn contract and an NBC contract with no guarantees.

It's great that the NHLPA offered the rollback, the NHL raised their offers from 33.4 to 42.5 with benefits since last summer. It's great the pa finally offered somewhat of a cap with exemptions that go as high as 53.9 million twice but it solves little if the business is in as bad a situtation as people involved with it claim it is. The players are still making 60-70 pecent of the revenue and a 1.3 mil avg salary is not enough? The sports making profits do not function this way in favor of the players
for a sport like hockey to do this is disasterous.

The league even offered the players the 12/9 pa system for two years to see if it worked and Goodenow turned it down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
We cannot say here with confidence what the deal should be. So many people say that the owners offered $42.5 million and that should be enough. some of those same people thought that $31-35 was enough. Whatever. Bettman's reasoning for not raising the bar was utterly ridiculous - 'what if every team spent that amount...'? That's quite possible the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Somehow hockey survived with a range of payrolls from $22-$80 million...could it not survive $30 million-$50 million? And that's a range...the averge payroll falls somewhere in between there. It's crazy.

How is something losing money surviving by agreeing to lose less money? I do not like owners but they are entitled to make a little money owing a team at some point?

We can say with confidence both sides can live with a cap and we can say without a doubt that revenues are going down. There are things the owners can offer to lower UFA or arbitration. Some things the owners put in those recent proposals like suspending holdouts for the season were out of line and took away basic gains the PA has earned.

I do not agree with what Bettman said at this time but if star players became available to teams at lower prices those low payroll teams would be inclined to sign some of them so their payrolls would increase. I guess the plan behind that is those players sell tickets and generate the revenue to bring people in as maybe Bure did with the post-finals Panthers.

dedalus 03-02-2005 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
And I think that you are kidding yourself if you think that watching a few disruntled 4th line waiver scrubs and ECHLers is going to attract fans.

And speaking of chest beating ... ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.