View Single Post
Old
02-06-2005, 12:41 PM
  #5
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
From the "Here comes Hell week" Larry Brooks, New York Post, Feb 6, 2005-It's the same approach the league has taken to the game itself, institutionalizing obstruction so that the weakest teams are given an unfair chance to beat the most talented. It's the same approach the league has taken to the schedule, where the number of divisional and rivalry games are kept to a minimum because the weak markets are dependent upon visits from Original Six clubs.

It seems very appropriate comming from a writer of a New York paper, who only gets to see things from his side. Never having to write about the woes of the Yankees inablility to compete with the mega super franchises and their huge payroll. Maybe Mr Brooks should take a one year visit to Edmonton and see what it's like on the other side of the fence. I don't think the NHL is going to get the linkage that it wants, but it should. It's not out of line to think that players salaries should be based on league wide revenue. It's better for the game, from top to bottom. If the NHL is the gate driven system that it claims to be then having a league where the salaries are fixed to revenues will only help bring fans in, well in theory it should. So what I mean is, if the players want to make more money, then they'll have to play a more entertaining style of hockey to bring fans into the seats, more buts in the seats means more people will also likely be willing to pay to watch at home, and more people watching at home means bigger tv contracts. In theory this is a great system, but theories aren't proven unless someone is willing to take the risks and go for a system that is based on linkage. Are we going to see linkage, no. Am I babbling now, yes. :lol
You are painting him with the Big Market brush .. while I will be the first to agree that I am not a big fan of his .. I can not objectively see where he is misrepresenting information ..

It is true that Bettman is tearing apart the big market stronger teams to even the playing surface for the weakest ones .. and I do not see Edmonton or any small-market team on his hit list.. he is talking about the non-hockey USA NHL markets.

He is absolutely correct that Fans due to the lockout are going to stay away in droves and that their wages even after the 24% is going DOWN DOWN DOWN if tied to revenue or better put loss there of ..

He is correct in saying that the NHL is putting in clauses to punish the owners for hiding revenue and that is based on the fact that they have done it before and will do it again and then saying trust me ..

but the part about the article that I got the most from is written mostly between the lines ... Sports Networks like TSN and ESPN are funded from big corporation and TV deals from the NHL.. not from the players that they broadcast .. So are you more likely to report unbiased on this situation when your pay cheque comes from the NHL in a round-about way ?? If you are a reporter or employee that works for these Networks what kind of direction are you going to get from owners of these stations .. ??

I must say TSN does do a good job as they have 1 of each to be as neutral as possible .. Sort of like those 3 monkeys .. Hear no evil (Glen Healy) .. See no Evil (Brian Burke) .. and Speak no Evil ( Bob McKenzie) ..to give us all sides of this of this dispute .. but in general all reports have to be viewed either Paper or TV or Radio with who pays their salary, and that will always have a perceived bias as a result built in ..

Mess is offline