View Single Post
12-09-2004, 02:08 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fletch
Add-in revenue sharing and the payroll number further decreases and other teams get a bigger portion, all the while with payroll decreasing, and revenues increasing for other teams.
The NHL is the only pro sports league without revenue sharing. Not that there is much revenue to share.

Originally Posted by JR#9
This league is way too watered down talent wise and because of the agenda to acieve ARTIFICIAL parity skill and talent have been all but eliminated as the main determining factors in games thus killing the entertainment value thus hurting revenues!!!!
Is the league more watered down talent-wise or is it just the game is not covered as it used to be so we do not know the players, especially now that a much larger pool of players come from Europe and most are not very marketable despite that most of them learn the language and work hard to help the games image?

Were Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec popular franchises looking back or was the media more interested in hockey in those days.

As to the product now the players are larger and wear much bigger equipment, buildings cannot change the ice surface so there is less room and less scoring so less entertainment. Goaltenders wear so much equipment today vs what they used to wear.

The team that led the league in scoring this year would have been dead last in 1986. That's quite a decline over only eighteen years.

Originally Posted by JR#9
Eliminate 6 markets that can't/won't support their markets properly and you have a much healthier 24 remaining teams which would have significantly more talent on each team due to 6 teams not having rosters anymore.
The NHLPA will never accept the elimination of 120+ jobs. During the World Cup Team Canada looked the Devils playing a trap and it was an All-Star team.
Eliminating teams will not change what the current generation of coaches teach players today.

Originally Posted by JR#9
Answer this--who voted to add 9, that's right NINE teams in a decade and who as a result allowed for trap hockey to ruin the game all in the name of keeping these new markets that paid big $$ to get in artificially competitive??
Who exactly has continuely made poor buisness decisions and not only haven't been able to reach any of the lofty goals they crowed about in the 90's but actually have made the game take some major steps backwards?? [/QUOTE]Where was the NHLPA to object to all these teams being added. They went right along with owners wanting to collect expanion fees because they wanted a larger NHLPA.

The expansion movement also began before Bettman. He did bring hockey back to Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta, Dallas is not a failed market, Columbus was an excellent expansion.

Last edited by NYIsles1*: 12-09-2004 at 02:16 PM.
NYIsles1* is offline