HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

New NHL Proposal..REJECTED!!!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2005, 07:21 PM
  #26
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBudsForever
Both the NHLPA and the owners deserve the misery and damage that they are inflicting upon themselves and the game. It's the story about GREED that cuts two ways. The players who wanted more and more $'s which dumb owners were willing to give.
Yes and no, yes, rich team owners are greedy, that we can not deny, and the players most definatly, but those small market teams, like the Edmontons and Calgary's, that's what the strike is truly about, or what it should be truly about, creating a league that those teams can survive in, not just survive though, compete. And until the players get that, there won't be an agreement on a new CBA.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 07:32 PM
  #27
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4100
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
Yes and no, yes, rich team owners are greedy, that we can not deny, and the players most definatly, but those small market teams, like the Edmontons and Calgary's, that's what the strike is truly about, or what it should be truly about, creating a league that those teams can survive in, not just survive though, compete. And until the players get that, there won't be an agreement on a new CBA.
Its a lockout!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The NHL has done far more harm to those teams than the NHLPA.They greedily accepted all the new franchise money with big smiles on their faces when Bettman overexpanded to rake in revenue that most could plainly see was being invested in very very shaky markets.I dont feel sorry for a single one of them,you reap what you sew.

leaflover is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 07:46 PM
  #28
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaflover
Its a lockout!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The NHL has done far more harm to those teams than the NHLPA.They greedily accepted all the new franchise money with big smiles on their faces when Bettman overexpanded to rake in revenue that most could plainly see was being invested in very very shaky markets.I dont feel sorry for a single one of them,you reap what you sew.
So you honestly think that had edmonton or calgary had said that they didn't want teams in atlanta or nashville, the NHL would have said, "oh ok, ya you're right, bad idea". Edmonton, Calgary, whoever it was, had to watch what was happening to the league, and could do nothing about it. Just because they got money for expansion doesn't mean they wanted it to happen. The rich owners, of the RICH TEAMS, IE TORONTO, NEW YORK, DETROIT etc are to blame for the condition the NHL is in, the small market teams are reaping what the rich teams sew, THAT'S A FACT!!! :mad:

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 09:51 PM
  #29
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4100
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
So you honestly think that had edmonton or calgary had said that they didn't want teams in atlanta or nashville, the NHL would have said, "oh ok, ya you're right, bad idea". Edmonton, Calgary, whoever it was, had to watch what was happening to the league, and could do nothing about it. Just because they got money for expansion doesn't mean they wanted it to happen. The rich owners, of the RICH TEAMS, IE TORONTO, NEW YORK, DETROIT etc are to blame for the condition the NHL is in, the small market teams are reaping what the rich teams sew, THAT'S A FACT!!! :mad:
LOL didn't mean to make you mad.
Do you think Bettman just tells the owners whats what and they accept it without any thought or input?

leaflover is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 10:47 PM
  #30
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaflover
LOL didn't mean to make you mad.
Do you think Bettman just tells the owners whats what and they accept it without any thought or input?
No, but I tend to think Edmonton was outnumbered in many a vote.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 10:54 PM
  #31
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaflover
LOL didn't mean to make you mad.
Sorry, I'm just getting tired of this lack of respect for the little guy. There seems to be this anti small market team thing going on from the fans of the larger market teams, who seem to be angry that the small market teams are responsible for the league not playing right now, and if they can't compete in the league as it is, then they should pack up and get out. I really disagree with this kind of thinking, especially when it concerns small market Canadian teams, who absolutely NEED to be a part of the NHL going forward, because if they aren't, I wont be a fan of any NHL team, I'll stick to junior and Canadian National hockey.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 11:18 PM
  #32
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4100
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
Sorry, I'm just getting tired of this lack of respect for the little guy. There seems to be this anti small market team thing going on from the fans of the larger market teams, who seem to be angry that the small market teams are responsible for the league not playing right now, and if they can't compete in the league as it is, then they should pack up and get out. I really disagree with this kind of thinking, especially when it concerns small market Canadian teams, who absolutely NEED to be a part of the NHL going forward, because if they aren't, I wont be a fan of any NHL team, I'll stick to junior and Canadian National hockey.
IMO the small market Canadian teams have the fan base to support an NHL team without having to make the players pay for the mistakes both sides have made which resulted in the situation we see today.My problem with fully supporting small market teams is that it not only means supporting the small market teams with solid fan bases where the NHL belongs but also those teams where the NHL has no reason to be located other than some billionaire was willing to cough up mega bucks and the owners were blinded by extra franchise fee revenue.Believe me i dont want to see the oilers fold,thats where i go to watch games live.So i guess i support the Oilers with my money rather than my voice or opinion on this lockout.
Betcha those greedy ******** in Edmonton prefer my money over my opinion any day of the week.

leaflover is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 11:22 PM
  #33
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaflover
IMO the small market Canadian teams have the fan base to support an NHL team without having to make the players pay for the mistakes both sides have made which resulted in the situation we see today.My problem with fully supporting small market teams is that it not only means supporting the small market teams with solid fan bases where the NHL belongs but also those teams where the NHL has no reason to be located other than some billionaire was willing to cough up mega bucks and the owners were blinded by extra franchise fee revenue.Believe me i dont want to see the oilers fold,thats where i go to watch games live.So i guess i support the Oilers with my money rather than my voice or opinion on this lockout.
Betcha those greedy ******** in Edmonton prefer my money over my opinion any day of the week.
Edmonton is a perfect example .. they sell out most games and are unable to generate more revenue to cover cost as they beieve I guess that ticket prices are at break even points and higher and fans will leave .. SO they are worth supporting for the good of the NHL .. It is the US non-hockey markets that the finger is pointing at IMO ..

Mess is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 11:23 PM
  #34
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaflover
IMO the small market Canadian teams have the fan base to support an NHL team without having to make the players pay for the mistakes both sides have made which resulted in the situation we see today.My problem with fully supporting small market teams is that it not only means supporting the small market teams with solid fan bases where the NHL belongs but also those teams where the NHL has no reason to be located other than some billionaire was willing to cough up mega bucks and the owners were blinded by extra franchise fee revenue.Believe me i dont want to see the oilers fold,thats where i go to watch games live.So i guess i support the Oilers with my money rather than my voice or opinion on this lockout.
Betcha those greedy ******** in Edmonton prefer my money over my opinion any day of the week.
Unfortunatly mistake have already been made, and now there's no way of diferentiating teams that have a solid fan base, and use that as a reason to fold some of the small market teams. What's going to have to happen is those teams are going to have to go under on their own, when the league starts back up. If they don't go under, it'll be because they found a way to create that fan base, and make money. But I'm willing to bet over time, Nashville, Atlanta etc will not last.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 11:37 PM
  #35
LeeIs
M a t s
 
LeeIs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: T.O.
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
What's going to have to happen is those teams are going to have to go under on their own, when the league starts back up. If they don't go under, it'll be because they found a way to create that fan base, and make money. But I'm willing to bet over time, Nashville, Atlanta etc will not last.
No, if they don't go under when the new CBA kicks in will be most likely becuase they're being subsidized by other teams.

So you're saying that it's ok if they die naturally which will happen if they can't create the fan base & make money but yet in the same breath you're all for keeping a dying team on life support indefinately.

What people are arguing is that the absolute reason why the system is being reworked is to put those dying teams on a system that allows their survival. Hence their death will never come whether their fans show up or not.

LeeIs is offline  
Old
02-02-2005, 11:46 PM
  #36
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeIs
What people are arguing is that the absolute reason why the system is being reworked is to put those dying teams on a system that allows their survival. Hence their death will never come whether their fans show up or not.
No it's not. The NHL is a gate driven revenue system. They do not have the TV contracts, or other revenue streams to make any substantial amount of money, so teams have to rely on their ability to draw fans to games. If a team isn't puting buts in the seat, they wont make money, and they will go down. What the NHL is going to do is make it more a level playing field so small market teams can ice a team that wins, and hence, more buts in the seats, that's the only way they're gonna make money.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-03-2005, 12:00 AM
  #37
LeeIs
M a t s
 
LeeIs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: T.O.
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
No it's not. The NHL is a gate driven revenue system. They do not have the TV contracts, or other revenue streams to make any substantial amount of money, so teams have to rely on their ability to draw fans to games. If a team isn't puting buts in the seat, they wont make money, and they will go down. What the NHL is going to do is make it more a level playing field so small market teams can ice a team that wins, and hence, more buts in the seats, that's the only way they're gonna make money.
Then why would you believe that atleast three teams could go under even after the nhl starts back up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
But I'm willing to bet over time, Nashville, Atlanta etc will not last.
So the "level playing field" won't really be that leveled? After all if 3 teams fold after what you think is the NHL's great move of leveling things, doesn't that mean that this experiment isn't going to work at all for some teams? And if it doesn't work for some teams doesn't it mean that it might possibly not work for most?

LeeIs is offline  
Old
02-03-2005, 02:12 PM
  #38
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Edmonton is a perfect example .. they sell out most games and are unable to generate more revenue to cover cost as they beieve I guess that ticket prices are at break even points and higher and fans will leave .. SO they are worth supporting for the good of the NHL .. It is the US non-hockey markets that the finger is pointing at IMO ..
thanks guys (messenger, eddietheeagle and leaflover). From a small market team fan (Edmonton), I do appreciate some fans seeing the big picture overall and protecting the interests of the small market teams with solid fanbases like Edmonton, Calgary, and not so long ago - Ottawa. Unfortunately, its ironic that hockey is Canada's sport, yet two canadian teams are "small market" and find it difficult to compete on the open market for players and we've already seen the departure of Winnipeg and Quebec.

Question: if the NHL contracted, taking out Edmonton, Calgary, leaving only four Canadian teams - Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver, how would this impact the future of hockey in Canada (at the grassroots level)? Or would it?

Master Lok is online now  
Old
02-03-2005, 06:23 PM
  #39
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeIs
So the "level playing field" won't really be that leveled? After all if 3 teams fold after what you think is the NHL's great move of leveling things, doesn't that mean that this experiment isn't going to work at all for some teams? And if it doesn't work for some teams doesn't it mean that it might possibly not work for most?
If teams don't put fans in the seats, they wont survive. I'm sure the NHL isn't going to keep a team in a market where the fan support isn't substantial enough to create any revenue. Leveling the playing field is one thing, keeping a team on constant life support is another.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-03-2005, 07:04 PM
  #40
richardn
Registered User
 
richardn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 500
The problem is that a team won't go bankrupt because they will simply be sold to new ownership and relocate. The only other way is if the NHL was willing to buy the franchise back off the ownership and I don't think the NHL could afford to buy back four or five teams. We are forever stuck with 30 teams unless the league folds in my opinion.

richardn is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 02:28 AM
  #41
tml_4ever
It's Chaotic
 
tml_4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,923
vCash: 500
Rejected...since day one
My name is...******* son
I've been damned...so many times I've lost count!
Blue collar...working man
Devises...masterplan
Bi-polar...with a mental side arm

I'm sick and I'm twisted
I'm broken you can't fix it
Don't make me, cause I'll do it
Red button and we'll all go

Into the river below...I'm running from the inferno...
They'll think I'm insane but you'll all know my name!
Into the river below...I'm running from the inferno...
I'll take all the blame, the front page and the fame!

tml_4ever is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 04:09 AM
  #42
LeeIs
M a t s
 
LeeIs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: T.O.
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
If teams don't put fans in the seats, they wont survive. I'm sure the NHL isn't going to keep a team in a market where the fan support isn't substantial enough to create any revenue. Leveling the playing field is one thing, keeping a team on constant life support is another.
I guess the long term will be the judge of this. I still belive that some cities can't support pro sports at all let alone an NHL team in a southern state.

Look at the raptors here. A fine () young player rose out of toronto. People came in flocks to see him. Sold out arenas, even in losing seasons. Why that sort of thing isn't possible in a city which houses kovelchuk & Heatly, I don't know. Infact the Raptors were somewhat popular since their inception & the whole mighty mouse thing, all in a city that WASN'T an NBA market.

This is another angle to look at this issue. Some cities just have an apetite for sports that other cities don't. Atlanta is a major city in the U.S. yet they're not even interested in their NBA team, the Hawks. I didn't look at any numbers for this but I remember seeing nothing but empty seats when the raptors played them & when I watched the higlights of their home games.

So you're saying they need a winning team to attract viewers. What happens when they're not doing that well? All the fans will just sadly disappear.

More than a winning team, they need the apetitie for sports or atleast that particular sport & a core of die hard followers (those that won't fall of the wagon).

In the Atlanta case, they basically stopped watching basketball after dominique (the human highlight) wilken's days. We here in T.O. are glad our Human higlight is gone and are looking for a brighter future. We've been a losing team for the past 2-3 years but the following hasn't dramaticaly stopped, it might have slightly dipped though. If a city stops following such a proud team as the Hawks for the lack of wins or superstars, you really must question that city's actual need of that sport team being there. They surely can't expect to be winning all the time.

I blab & blab. I almost forget what I was talking about. My point is: In sports in general there are markets that are better than others & when it comes to the specific sports there are still markets that are better than others.

LeeIs is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 08:48 AM
  #43
It Kills Me
Registered User
 
It Kills Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neogeo69
Question: if the NHL contracted, taking out Edmonton, Calgary, leaving only four Canadian teams - Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver, how would this impact the future of hockey in Canada (at the grassroots level)? Or would it?
I remember someone posting earlier that all the Canadian teams were profitable last season (thanks to Calgary extra money from the playoffs).

Why would they fold? I'd prefer a traditional NHL without Phoenix (who plays hockey in a dessert) and company.

It Kills Me is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 10:57 AM
  #44
TrueBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hamilton, home of Pa
Posts: 1,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skittles.TML
I remember someone posting earlier that all the Canadian teams were profitable last season (thanks to Calgary extra money from the playoffs).

Why would they fold? I'd prefer a traditional NHL without Phoenix (who plays hockey in a dessert) and company.

Canadian teams did better last year than previous years because of the surging dollar. And in fact, because of the strong dollar, we may be in a better position to get another Canadian team than we were ever before. We won't get one through expansion, but a U.S team relocating here as they would actually make money here instead of over there.

TrueBlue is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 05:27 PM
  #45
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Like I have stated in many threads in these forums.. Here's the largest issue. The largest issue right now is based on the blame game. The players state its the owners fault. The Owners state its the players fault. The fact of the matter is its BOTH, to an extent. Only a handful of greedy owners and a larger handful of greedy players really are the culprits. The Players say, "the owners are the ones offering us the contracts." I'll tell you what, they're 100% right. At the same time, the players who make these statements are the very same players who sign the contracts on the very teams causing the problems. These players sign on the teams they blame on the situation the NHL is in now. Does any of this make sense? ******* NO! It's a major hypocrisy. Lets get past who's right or wrong and solve this mess so we can PLAY SOME HOCKEY! With the current CBA, the NHL is doomed and the players need to accept this instead of seeing this situation through tunnel vision. The last proposal was as fair as I've ever seen by the NHL. There are no major sources of revenue! Poker is more popular in the majority of the states than the NHL! In otherwords, would you fans of Toronto accept only having one team based in Canada, because that's whats gonna happen if there aint no propper deal done. When will these player realize there's something wrong with the NHL, when the NHL contracts back to the original six? How terminal does the NHL have to be before the PA sees a problem? Like I said, Some owners are to blame, but its gone past that! A salary roll back is the saddest offer I've seen thus far. A temporary patch, WOW, that'll solve everything!


Last edited by Vagabond: 02-06-2005 at 10:53 PM.
Vagabond is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:15 PM
  #46
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond
Like I have stated in many threads in these forums.. Here's the largest issue. The largest issue right now is based on the blame game. The players state its the owners fault. The Owners state its the players fault. The fact of the matter is its BOTH, to an extent.
I would disagree with you saying it's both sides fault for the problems the NHL is in, to me it's not both, it's purely the owners fault. But, it's up to the players to be willing to fix the problem. The owners created the problem by signing player to salaries that they did not deserve, ie Bobby Holik, Martin Lapointe...Thus creating a market for over achieving players to get paid well beyong what they are worth. Now it is up to the players to recognise this mistake, and be willing to fix it. You can't blame the players, or the union, they did their jobs, and got overpaid for it. The unions job is to get the players the most money they can in the system that exists, and they did a really good job of it.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 03:05 PM
  #47
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4100
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I would disagree with you saying it's both sides fault for the problems the NHL is in, to me it's not both, it's purely the owners fault. But, it's up to the players to be willing to fix the problem. The owners created the problem by signing player to salaries that they did not deserve, ie Bobby Holik, Martin Lapointe...Thus creating a market for over achieving players to get paid well beyong what they are worth. Now it is up to the players to recognise this mistake, and be willing to fix it. You can't blame the players, or the union, they did their jobs, and got overpaid for it. The unions job is to get the players the most money they can in the system that exists, and they did a really good job of it.

The cold hard truth.

leaflover is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 12:45 AM
  #48
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I would disagree with you saying it's both sides fault for the problems the NHL is in, to me it's not both, it's purely the owners fault. But, it's up to the players to be willing to fix the problem. The owners created the problem by signing player to salaries that they did not deserve, ie Bobby Holik, Martin Lapointe...Thus creating a market for over achieving players to get paid well beyong what they are worth. Now it is up to the players to recognise this mistake, and be willing to fix it. You can't blame the players, or the union, they did their jobs, and got overpaid for it. The unions job is to get the players the most money they can in the system that exists, and they did a really good job of it.

True, but at the same time, why should the blame of a few owners be tight-casts on the rest of the owners who marketed their salaries properly? At the same time, if the players are not to blame, is it not hypothetical of the players blaming owners for signing them for outrageous contracts that they, themselves had no problem accepting.. knowing the consequences?


Last edited by Vagabond: 02-08-2005 at 01:06 AM.
Vagabond is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.