HFBoards

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

"Everybody's talking about a two month lockout," says Cherry.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-20-2012, 08:56 AM
  #51
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I think the battle is more owner vs owner than it is NHL vs NHLPA.

When the top revenue producing teams increase their revenue each year and don't spend the increase in cap because a) the bottom line is more important or b) they are already near the cap they are also forcing the smaller market teams with a stagnant growth in revenues or already losing money to spend more money because of the increase in cap floor.

So the teams making the big bucks are all for the players receiving a lower HRR and the NHL's proposal because they don't have to increase revenue sharing and it's even more money for their pockets. The teams at the bottom wouldn't be seeing any more profit, they'd just be seeing less of a loss. Which is why they would prefer the NHLPA's offer because with their proposed revenue sharing, there'd be a more level playing field and less teams operating in the red.

Agent Alan Walsh has already said he's talked to some higher up execs of those smaller market/money losing teams and they are all for the NHLPA proposal with the exception of the numbers.

A lot of the smaller issues have already been dealt with in sub-committee level and there is agreement on them. And once the big market teams start losing their huge profits, they'll either cave or force the hand of the smaller guys. And then a deal should come quickly with the smaller issues already being dealt with.
Good stuff as usual Dom

Dom, just want to ask, will the Quebec Coyotes be considered a small market or big market team????

ODAAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 09:02 AM
  #52
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,225
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
Good stuff as usual Dom

Dom, just want to ask, will the Quebec Coyotes be considered a small market or big market team????
Haha !!

You just kind of posed a question that I'm going to have to find the answer out to.

City of Glendale covered $25 million of Phoenix's losses last season. Can't see how that would be counted as revenue because they didn't break even, but still curious. Needless to say, I don't think Quebec would lose $25 million.

Dom - OHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 09:03 AM
  #53
McKuato
Registered User
 
McKuato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lowell, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
Hopefully there is no lockout I'm already itching for hockey.
But if there is hopefully it motivates the league to fold or move the teams that can't carry themselves to better markets so the league can thrive and we won't have to go through this every 5 years.

McKuato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 09:12 AM
  #54
bruinsfan001
Registered User
 
bruinsfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers View Post
Than why worry about something we have no control over?

bruinsfan001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 09:59 AM
  #55
compan
Registered User
 
compan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers View Post
82 games is too long. Gotta agree with you there.
Not long enough.

I need hockey year round and Olympic hockey yearly.

compan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 10:07 AM
  #56
hoss75
Registered User
 
hoss75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I think the battle is more owner vs owner than it is NHL vs NHLPA.

When the top revenue producing teams increase their revenue each year and don't spend the increase in cap because a) the bottom line is more important or b) they are already near the cap they are also forcing the smaller market teams with a stagnant growth in revenues or already losing money to spend more money because of the increase in cap floor.

So the teams making the big bucks are all for the players receiving a lower HRR and the NHL's proposal because they don't have to increase revenue sharing and it's even more money for their pockets. The teams at the bottom wouldn't be seeing any more profit, they'd just be seeing less of a loss. Which is why they would prefer the NHLPA's offer because with their proposed revenue sharing, there'd be a more level playing field and less teams operating in the red.

Agent Alan Walsh has already said he's talked to some higher up execs of those smaller market/money losing teams and they are all for the NHLPA proposal with the exception of the numbers.

A lot of the smaller issues have already been dealt with in sub-committee level and there is agreement on them. And once the big market teams start losing their huge profits, they'll either cave or force the hand of the smaller guys. And then a deal should come quickly with the smaller issues already being dealt with.
This is an excellent point.
I'm for the bigger dogs helping out the smaller teams for the greater good of the NHL. But there does need to be some cost cutting to justify it. And the league needs to be better about protecting those 'investments' from futile experiments. Who in their right mind can justify sending a check to Arizona?

hoss75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 11:28 AM
  #57
Fierce1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I think the battle is more owner vs owner than it is NHL vs NHLPA.

When the top revenue producing teams increase their revenue each year and don't spend the increase in cap because a) the bottom line is more important or b) they are already near the cap they are also forcing the smaller market teams with a stagnant growth in revenues or already losing money to spend more money because of the increase in cap floor.

So the teams making the big bucks are all for the players receiving a lower HRR and the NHL's proposal because they don't have to increase revenue sharing and it's even more money for their pockets. The teams at the bottom wouldn't be seeing any more profit, they'd just be seeing less of a loss. Which is why they would prefer the NHLPA's offer because with their proposed revenue sharing, there'd be a more level playing field and less teams operating in the red.

Agent Alan Walsh has already said he's talked to some higher up execs of those smaller market/money losing teams and they are all for the NHLPA proposal with the exception of the numbers.

A lot of the smaller issues have already been dealt with in sub-committee level and there is agreement on them. And once the big market teams start losing their huge profits, they'll either cave or force the hand of the smaller guys. And then a deal should come quickly with the smaller issues already being dealt with.

Good points OOG, probably Donald Fehr's strategy all along to highlight the differences between the small and large market teams, appeal to both sides and watch them fight amongst themselves. I just want this resolved but the only thing I can't live with is a luxury tax. I can't watch a league where 6 out of 30 teams have a huge advantage and compete for a championship every year.

Fierce1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 12:04 PM
  #58
RustyBruins72
Registered User
 
RustyBruins72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
PREDICTION:

No missed games.

Team Banana.

(I honestly believe this.)
First of all, I always thought you lived in Everett, WA not in Mass.

Second, I totally agree. I believe there won't be any games missed.

Third, there better not be. I have pre-season tickets to watch the Bruins play the jets in Saskatoon.

RustyBruins72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 12:13 PM
  #59
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fierce1 View Post
Good points OOG, probably Donald Fehr's strategy all along to highlight the differences between the small and large market teams, appeal to both sides and watch them fight amongst themselves. I just want this resolved but the only thing I can't live with is a luxury tax. I can't watch a league where 6 out of 30 teams have a huge advantage and compete for a championship every year.
Donald Fehr and the PA didn't even HAVE to highlight anything... It was the NHL's OWN argument! The reason that they felt the need to so aggressively cut back the players' share and limit their options despite record revenues was because of the struggles of the small market clubs.

The PA offers the groundwork for a solution that actually helps those clubs MORE than the NHL's (which seems more focused on helping the big market teams make even GREATER profits)... And we're being told that philosophically, the two sides are at completely different angles? Not a chance.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 12:19 PM
  #60
PatriceBergeronFan
U.S. Army Hooah!
 
PatriceBergeronFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BklyNBruiN View Post
Its going to f*&^en suck if we have no Hockey till December. I am a huge football fan also but they only play once a week of course. errrrr I look forward to my Bruins playing every other day or so its great.
Exactly. Love football to death but hockey makes the weekdays better. Those two are all I really need to survive.

PatriceBergeronFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 01:16 PM
  #61
stocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 579
vCash: 500
If there is no Hockey they will kill this sport. Did they learn anything from the last 2 stoppages ?

stocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 01:24 PM
  #62
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stocker View Post
If there is no Hockey they will kill this sport. Did they learn anything from the last 2 stoppages ?
Is the game alive as of today? And didn't people claim the last lockout would kill the sport?

Look it shocks me as much as anyone, but every time a sport does this people claim it'll "die", and lo and behold, after some time, it rebounds.

bp13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 01:56 PM
  #63
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruinsfan001 View Post
Than why worry about something we have no control over?
You are a fan.

A fan of a hockey team.

A team that plays its game without any input at all from you, unless you hold season tix, and even then, it's not a lot.

And you're asking this question?

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 02:00 PM
  #64
rudos1
Registered User
 
rudos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 654
vCash: 500
A lockout will be very bad for all involved. It doesn't take a genuis to realize that the NHL's fanbase is tiny compared to the other major league sports and they can't afford to allienate their hardcore supporters. I for one will be really pissed if this happens...

rudos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 05:39 PM
  #65
TheReal13Linseman
Registered Abuser
 
TheReal13Linseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nation's Capital
Country: United States
Posts: 7,049
vCash: 500
Lockout is a lock, IMO. NHLPA, like most unions, acts in shortsighted self-interest too often, IMO. Their proposals seems to "give" very little at this point. Maybe both sides will meet in the middle on the money issue with a $60 million ceiling and $45 million floor. Hockey, regrettably, ain't like the other sports; only a few people really care if it's here or not, particularly in the States. Football and basketball are right there to soak up the dollars. No hockey til 2013, if at all, is my prediction.

__________________
My views have No Movement Clauses.
Bruins HF Board: Come for the lunacy; stay for the snipefest.
Marchand: Today's Linseman
Pastrnak means "Eurolectric" in Czech. Look it up.
Aw, what the hell, let's make another thread about how much Gagne sucks.
TheReal13Linseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 05:52 PM
  #66
Fierce1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Donald Fehr and the PA didn't even HAVE to highlight anything... It was the NHL's OWN argument! The reason that they felt the need to so aggressively cut back the players' share and limit their options despite record revenues was because of the struggles of the small market clubs.

The PA offers the groundwork for a solution that actually helps those clubs MORE than the NHL's (which seems more focused on helping the big market teams make even GREATER profits)... And we're being told that philosophically, the two sides are at completely different angles? Not a chance.

My point is that Fehr will try to drive a wedge between the rich and poor teams and create dissension. Trying to trip up Bettman at his own game will be a much tougher road to travel. For the record I thought the NHL's offer was insulting and the PA offer was equally as insulting. Both sides are still just wasting everybody's time.

Fierce1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 06:45 PM
  #67
RustyBruins72
Registered User
 
RustyBruins72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReal13Linseman View Post
Lockout is a lock, IMO. NHLPA, like most unions, acts in shortsighted self-interest too often, IMO. Their proposals seems to "give" very little at this point. Maybe both sides will meet in the middle on the money issue with a $60 million ceiling and $45 million floor. Hockey, regrettably, ain't like the other sports; only a few people really care if it's here or not, particularly in the States. Football and basketball are right there to soak up the dollars. No hockey til 2013, if at all, is my prediction.
In the southern US and other soft markets any lockout will mean the end to those franchises because, as you said, only a few people care. I don't think those teams will survive.

Maybe it's what the bigger market teams want. Less teams, less to share with struggling teams. Make the league stronger as a whole by shedding a few weak links.

RustyBruins72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 07:12 PM
  #68
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,225
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyBruins72 View Post
In the southern US and other soft markets any lockout will mean the end to those franchises because, as you said, only a few people care. I don't think those teams will survive.

Maybe it's what the bigger market teams want. Less teams, less to share with struggling teams. Make the league stronger as a whole by shedding a few weak links.
I don't think the big market teams or the NHLPA wants that. (Especially the NHLPA because more revenue leads to more money for the players and their proposal helps those small market teams in the interim until something happens with those teams)

A look at Atlanta's move to Winnipeg is an example. Major losses wiped out in one single move. And I would bet the same would happen in a Phoenix move to Quebec (or wherever). New Jersey is in financial trouble because of the debt they have. Bad on their part for negotiating loans in which they had to make an $80 million payment in one year, something even the all mighty Leafs probably couldn't do without losing money. (Revenues of $127 million - $60 million in payroll - $80 million loan payment, easy math)

I really dont think the big market teams want contraction. I think they are more interested in having 29 other franchises that are self sustaining and don't need a share of their money to stay afloat. Which is why the NHLPA offer doesnt wash with them.

And those 12 or so teams that are losing money? While the NHL proposal would help them in the immediate future, eventually they'll end up back to where they are today because mega dollar producing teams like the Leafs, Habs, Rangers, Canucks will continue to print money and raising the cap because of it. Phoenix moving to Quebec will increase the cap just because of increased revenue. New Jersey moving to another New York market - ditto.

You can't move 12 money losing franchises. There just arent enough places to move to. You probably couldn't contract those 12 teams either without a negative impact on the game. Which is why those teams probably like the NHLPA's idea of a revamped revenue sharing that will not only make them more profitable, but more competitive on the ice as well - and we know that winning can and will lead to greater profitability and giving them a chance to be self sustaining.

Dom - OHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 07:37 PM
  #69
FutureConsiderations
Registered User
 
FutureConsiderations's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Brookline, MA
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I think the battle is more owner vs owner than it is NHL vs NHLPA.

When the top revenue producing teams increase their revenue each year and don't spend the increase in cap because a) the bottom line is more important or b) they are already near the cap they are also forcing the smaller market teams with a stagnant growth in revenues or already losing money to spend more money because of the increase in cap floor.

So the teams making the big bucks are all for the players receiving a lower HRR and the NHL's proposal because they don't have to increase revenue sharing and it's even more money for their pockets. The teams at the bottom wouldn't be seeing any more profit, they'd just be seeing less of a loss. Which is why they would prefer the NHLPA's offer because with their proposed revenue sharing, there'd be a more level playing field and less teams operating in the red.

Agent Alan Walsh has already said he's talked to some higher up execs of those smaller market/money losing teams and they are all for the NHLPA proposal with the exception of the numbers.

A lot of the smaller issues have already been dealt with in sub-committee level and there is agreement on them. And once the big market teams start losing their huge profits, they'll either cave or force the hand of the smaller guys. And then a deal should come quickly with the smaller issues already being dealt with.
Fehr's proposal seemed like it was intended to be a wedge aimed right between the owners who can bury $6M players in Hartford and owners who can't afford even a million over the floor. And what a year to do this in: between Minnesota's spending frenzy, Homer/Snider raiding Nashville, and a larger market club like NJ going through bankruptcy, the league's ruling class needs to realize that it's time to shake up the financial structure of the league.

Fehr hit them straight between the eyes with this one. I'm impressed.

FutureConsiderations is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 08:45 PM
  #70
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,117
vCash: 500
im flabgasted at all this talk about the owners being 'greedy' and trying to destroy the game over profits lol

the truth is the owners do make money/have money BUT THEY GET IT FROM SOURCES OTHER THEN HOCKEY OWNERSHIP. Any nominal profits they might get from their time as an owner are insignificant to whatever they might otherwise normally expect from having 200-400 million dollars invested in ANY OTHER VENTURE they might choose to invest in. even at 2% bank deposit type returns its going to be up to 8 mill a year back on that sort of an investment.

the reality is that fans go in an OUTRAGE if the owners dont spend to the cap max to get the best possible team to win with. Our own board was FREAKED that chiarelli didnt spend to the moon last offseason and again at the deadline. We can all laugh like little fools and say the owners need to be 'saved from themselves' over the contracts that get handed out but it is US FANS THAT DEMAND MAXIMUM SPENDING so the only way the owners can save face is to get the revenues split in a way that actually is sustainable.

now there are 10 teams constantly on the verge of disaster... constanly looking for new ownership... constantly looking for refinancing and help. We could argue these teams arent successful on the ice but those owners still have 200-400 mill invested and they sure as hell arent making ANY PROFIT AT ALL

maybe the top 10 markets will make 30-40-50 mill a year... maybe... but SO WHAT? Why isnt someone in a capatilistic society allowed to invest 400-800 mill into a busines and allowed to make a 10% profit on that investment? MY GOD

i dont begrudge the 'entertainers' a fair share of compensation... our society puts a great premium on entertainers and singers/actors/sports stars all deserve to be paid. But theres a difference between the lead singer getting 1 mill for a concert and his back up dancer getting 5000 dollars and there should be the same difference between crosby getting 10 mill to play hockey and chris kelly making more like 1 mill tops. I like chris kelly but paying someone a mill a year to play hockey is NOT AN INSULT!!!!

ultimately the money does come out of mine and your pockets and in all this cba talk they never ever mention they are killing this golden goose. my generation grew up with hockey and will support it forever. my generation is fueling this bubble now. the kids of today grow up with video games and extreme sports and hockey is getting out of the price range for todays young families to take their kids. this is a problem that will get worst and worst if the league and players dont give their heads a shake.

i realize the current pie is 3.3 bill an projected to grow... i realize they are trying to split it between themselves. They should take a good half of it and funnel it back to us fans imho. but in the meantime the economics are what they are. owners tie up gobs of money in the teams and fans cry for even more. NO PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE is making anywhere near an insulting wage that is impossible to live on {except the part time players and I think they deserve more too} The players could go a hell of a long way towards earning some respect from me by at least paying lipservice to teh support of us fans. Sure enough they play the game... and we watch.. but if we didnt watch then theyd be getting paid the same as me to play and i get paid ZERO! Without us fans paying... they dont get one single dime.

The owners meanwhile would take their 200-400 mill and invest in any other business and get their normal profits. They arent in hockey because they are greedy lmao. They are in hockey for their egos and to give us a winning team in our cities. Owners that dont try to win... quickly sell the team to. It aint fun for them if they cant win with the team. So yes the owners need to be protected from 'themselves' but its us fans that are the reason so ease up tigers and try to have a realistic view of this whole mess.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 09:19 PM
  #71
Bizarro Bandwagoner
Registered User
 
Bizarro Bandwagoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 3,325
vCash: 500
Can't believe they're going to let this happen so soon after missing an entire friggin season. What a bunch of idiots. Extend the current CBA for one year and give yourselves plenty of time to figure this out.

Bizarro Bandwagoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 09:53 PM
  #72
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fierce1 View Post
My point is that Fehr will try to drive a wedge between the rich and poor teams and create dissension. Trying to trip up Bettman at his own game will be a much tougher road to travel. For the record I thought the NHL's offer was insulting and the PA offer was equally as insulting. Both sides are still just wasting everybody's time.
I'm taking a HUGE issue with this post.

In what way was the PA's offer insulting? Insulting?? Really?

Why is the NHLPA the ONLY side expected to "give"?

This line of reasoning makes me actually angry.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 10:04 PM
  #73
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReal13Linseman View Post
Lockout is a lock, IMO. NHLPA, like most unions, acts in shortsighted self-interest too often, IMO. Their proposals seems to "give" very little at this point. Maybe both sides will meet in the middle on the money issue with a $60 million ceiling and $45 million floor. Hockey, regrettably, ain't like the other sports; only a few people really care if it's here or not, particularly in the States. Football and basketball are right there to soak up the dollars. No hockey til 2013, if at all, is my prediction.
What kind of "give" was there in the NHL's abomination of a proposal?

Mr. Make-Believe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 11:04 PM
  #74
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Is the game alive as of today? And didn't people claim the last lockout would kill the sport?

Look it shocks me as much as anyone, but every time a sport does this people claim it'll "die", and lo and behold, after some time, it rebounds.
Right. The real question should be "will they be able to work out a deal between them that will be a net PROFIT, considering the revenue lost in case of a lockout?" This will include a certain drop in profits from a fanbase that is already weary of this process and likely wants no part of it again... Especially since this time around, record numbers indicate that the league is in quite a different situation than it was at the turn of the century.


Last edited by Mr. Make-Believe: 08-20-2012 at 11:17 PM.
Mr. Make-Believe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 11:21 PM
  #75
FutureConsiderations
Registered User
 
FutureConsiderations's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Brookline, MA
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
im flabgasted at all this talk about the owners being 'greedy' and trying to destroy the game over profits lol

the truth is the owners do make money/have money BUT THEY GET IT FROM SOURCES OTHER THEN HOCKEY OWNERSHIP. Any nominal profits they might get from their time as an owner are insignificant to whatever they might otherwise normally expect from having 200-400 million dollars invested in ANY OTHER VENTURE they might choose to invest in. even at 2% bank deposit type returns its going to be up to 8 mill a year back on that sort of an investment.

the reality is that fans go in an OUTRAGE if the owners dont spend to the cap max to get the best possible team to win with. Our own board was FREAKED that chiarelli didnt spend to the moon last offseason and again at the deadline. We can all laugh like little fools and say the owners need to be 'saved from themselves' over the contracts that get handed out but it is US FANS THAT DEMAND MAXIMUM SPENDING so the only way the owners can save face is to get the revenues split in a way that actually is sustainable.

now there are 10 teams constantly on the verge of disaster... constanly looking for new ownership... constantly looking for refinancing and help. We could argue these teams arent successful on the ice but those owners still have 200-400 mill invested and they sure as hell arent making ANY PROFIT AT ALL

maybe the top 10 markets will make 30-40-50 mill a year... maybe... but SO WHAT? Why isnt someone in a capatilistic society allowed to invest 400-800 mill into a busines and allowed to make a 10% profit on that investment? MY GOD

i dont begrudge the 'entertainers' a fair share of compensation... our society puts a great premium on entertainers and singers/actors/sports stars all deserve to be paid. But theres a difference between the lead singer getting 1 mill for a concert and his back up dancer getting 5000 dollars and there should be the same difference between crosby getting 10 mill to play hockey and chris kelly making more like 1 mill tops. I like chris kelly but paying someone a mill a year to play hockey is NOT AN INSULT!!!!

ultimately the money does come out of mine and your pockets and in all this cba talk they never ever mention they are killing this golden goose. my generation grew up with hockey and will support it forever. my generation is fueling this bubble now. the kids of today grow up with video games and extreme sports and hockey is getting out of the price range for todays young families to take their kids. this is a problem that will get worst and worst if the league and players dont give their heads a shake.

i realize the current pie is 3.3 bill an projected to grow... i realize they are trying to split it between themselves. They should take a good half of it and funnel it back to us fans imho. but in the meantime the economics are what they are. owners tie up gobs of money in the teams and fans cry for even more. NO PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE is making anywhere near an insulting wage that is impossible to live on {except the part time players and I think they deserve more too} The players could go a hell of a long way towards earning some respect from me by at least paying lipservice to teh support of us fans. Sure enough they play the game... and we watch.. but if we didnt watch then theyd be getting paid the same as me to play and i get paid ZERO! Without us fans paying... they dont get one single dime.

The owners meanwhile would take their 200-400 mill and invest in any other business and get their normal profits. They arent in hockey because they are greedy lmao. They are in hockey for their egos and to give us a winning team in our cities. Owners that dont try to win... quickly sell the team to. It aint fun for them if they cant win with the team. So yes the owners need to be protected from 'themselves' but its us fans that are the reason so ease up tigers and try to have a realistic view of this whole mess.
This post is way too long for me and I won't even pretend to have read it all. But I think you're missing the fact that this is a lockout, not a strike. The owners are looking for a more favorable deal (i.e. being greedy) while the most influential owners take in megabucks on revenue from the team that doesn't factor in to what the players get paid. I'm not a union apologist but the facts of the case are that the owners want to change the rules to benefit themselves while the players have proposed a surprisingly reasonable first counteroffer that emphasizes league stability over player salaries.

FutureConsiderations is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:13 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.