HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-31-2012, 04:11 PM
  #876
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
****ity **** **** ****!

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 05:21 PM
  #877
NYRKindms
Registered User
 
NYRKindms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Passenger View Post
It just blows my mind the the owners and Bettman come out and say they need a reduction of player salaries, yet their handing out 6 and 7 year contracts like they're candy this offseason. It's the players fault you're handing out these ridiculous contracts? Look in the mirror. The problem is with the hypocrite owners and GMs.

If you want an to reduce players salaries, here's a radical idea: don't give out stupid, long term contracts in the first place!
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

In other words, NHL teams this summer have been signing players to contracts the league has no intention of paying in full.

NYRKindms is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 08:48 PM
  #878
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Passenger View Post
It just blows my mind the the owners and Bettman come out and say they need a reduction of player salaries, yet their handing out 6 and 7 year contracts like they're candy this offseason. It's the players fault you're handing out these ridiculous contracts? Look in the mirror. The problem is with the hypocrite owners and GMs.

If you want an to reduce players salaries, here's a radical idea: don't give out stupid, long term contracts in the first place!
And it adds to the frustration when you see Bettman increasing his pay check annually.

Florida Ranger is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 09:03 PM
  #879
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger de FLA View Post
And it adds to the frustration when you see Bettman increasing his pay check annually.
yup, that's right. gary bettman employs himself, owns the league, and raises his paycheck annually.

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 09:24 PM
  #880
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
I love when the basketball guy says the baseball guy doesn't understand something relating to the NHL cba.

The owners had this set up for years. A new, more restrictive cba on the horizon and they hand out record setting deals. They'll hold fast to the rollback until something like the winter classic is jeopardized.

Bettman is formulaic. He's trying to undermine Fehr and make him the bad guy. Win the press battle and get the players fighting each other. It's an all out win or nothing. No compromise.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 06:21 AM
  #881
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,596
vCash: 500
From: @andystrickland
Sent: Aug 31, 2012 11:23p

saying the #NHL labor dispute is a battle of the players vs the owners isn't 100% accurate with only a handful of owners on the same page

sent via Twitter for Android
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/andystrickland/st...37912151048193

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 07:43 AM
  #882
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,596
vCash: 500
Bettman is starting to get annoyed. Gary is pointing to the number of strikes Fehr had in MLB. Fehr negotiated 2 CBAs without a work stoppage in 02 and 06. 3rd time CBA is expiring with Gary in charge. 2 lockouts. A 3rd in 2 weeks? Bettman was complaining about not meeting with Fehr until June 29. I heard Gary with Francesa a few months ago say in 2004 they negotiated with PA for over a year and they still had a lockout. Maybe ownership is divided. End game is near. Bettman was complaining about 4 agents saying October is the real deadline. Players don't get paid until October. Season begins Oct. 11. 2 weeks players get paid. Late October 25. Today is Sept 1.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 08:47 AM
  #883
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Bettman is a moron, im so tired of him

LordsCup* is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 09:31 AM
  #884
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Bettman is starting to get annoyed. Gary is pointing to the number of strikes Fehr had in MLB. Fehr negotiated 2 CBAs without a work stoppage in 02 and 06. 3rd time CBA is expiring with Gary in charge. 2 lockouts. A 3rd in 2 weeks? Bettman was complaining about not meeting with Fehr until June 29. I heard Gary with Francesa a few months ago say in 2004 they negotiated with PA for over a year and they still had a lockout. Maybe ownership is divided. End game is near. Bettman was complaining about 4 agents saying October is the real deadline. Players don't get paid until October. Season begins Oct. 11. 2 weeks players get paid. Late October 25. Today is Sept 1.
well whenever the first pre-season game is is wehn the owners start getting revenue

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 11:53 AM
  #885
Megustaelhockey
Global Moderator
Hybrid icing
 
Megustaelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,082
vCash: 500
I'm going to run a business that gains momentum and makes money for several consecutive years and then shut it down and endanger the good will of my customer base. I deserve to be fired.

Megustaelhockey is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 12:00 PM
  #886
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megustaelhockey View Post
I'm going to run a business that gains momentum and makes money for several consecutive years and then shut it down and endanger the good will of my customer base. I deserve to be fired.
On the other hand, if after you re-open your business you recoup all your lost revenue and then increase your profits significantly going forward, you would likely deserve a promotion, no?

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 05:51 PM
  #887
E Nixson
Powered by Intel
 
E Nixson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Pride and greed kills.

These people pocket millions of dollars and they complain...
I'm so tired of hearing of this. More than half the teams in the league lost money last year. Under the current CBA teams like the Islanders and the San Jose Sharks aren't eligible for revenue sharing. The league's revenue pool has increased disproportionally leaving cap floor teams even further in the red. They can't keep up with the increasing cap. It isn't a good business plan for a healthy league.

Maybe Fehr's strategy is to make it seem like they are bracing for a lockout just to accept the final offer before his clients start to lose money. It isn't a secret that the owners hold the leverage. The biggest question is when Fehr and his constituents fold to the Owner's demands.

E Nixson is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 08:10 PM
  #888
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Shattenpants View Post
I'm so tired of hearing of this. More than half the teams in the league lost money last year. Under the current CBA teams like the Islanders and the San Jose Sharks aren't eligible for revenue sharing. The league's revenue pool has increased disproportionally leaving cap floor teams even further in the red. They can't keep up with the increasing cap. It isn't a good business plan for a healthy league.

Maybe Fehr's strategy is to make it seem like they are bracing for a lockout just to accept the final offer before his clients start to lose money. It isn't a secret that the owners hold the leverage. The biggest question is when Fehr and his constituents fold to the Owner's demands.
Cry me a river.

The teams that matter don't seem to be struggling financially.

Teams that generate revenue on their own merit need to fork over their money because fringe markets because they don't draw dick.

Who ****ing cares if the Islanders, Devils, Coyotes, Panthers get left behind. Had their "fans" gave a **** through their histories, they wouldn't be looking to leech off the organizations that matter.

Its a niche, regional sport, always has been, always will be.

No revenue sharing, salary cap, lock out, can save the organizations in markets where the general public could not give two ***** about their team.

This is a Rangers market. It was discussed on SiriusXM last fall. The Rangers dominate the tri state area ratings by more than double the Islanders and Devils combined.

No one, in a general sense, gives a damn about the Coyotes.

The Panthers? Folks don't fill the Marlins new ball park, they're going to fill the Panthers arena?

There is nothing a CBA can do to save some of these teams in the end.

Want a healthier league? Contract. Spread the real talent to less teams. Tougher more competitive league. Markets that care will survive.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 08:13 PM
  #889
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Imagine if the Rangers win the draft lottery that we should've rightfully won in 2005.... Seth Jones or Nathan MacKinnon???? For Columbus


Last edited by Kershaw: 09-01-2012 at 11:40 PM.
Kershaw is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 08:14 PM
  #890
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
By the way...why the hell should the Rangers need to fork over their revenue to save a team on the island that couldn't convince the county they reside in to vote to save their ass.

The county practically voted against keeping them where they are.

And the Rangers should keep them alive? Why?

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 08:39 PM
  #891
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post

Who ****ing cares if the Islanders, Devils, Coyotes, Panthers get left behind. Had their "fans" gave a **** through their histories, they wouldn't be looking to leech off the organizations that matter.
i'll tell you who cares.. the players certainly do

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 08:50 PM
  #892
E Nixson
Powered by Intel
 
E Nixson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Cry me a river.

The teams that matter don't seem to be struggling financially.

Who ****ing cares if the Islanders, Devils, Coyotes, Panthers get left behind. Had their "fans" gave a **** through their histories, they wouldn't be looking to leech off the organizations that matter.

Its a niche, regional sport, always has been, always will be.

No revenue sharing, salary cap, lock out, can save the organizations in markets where the general public could not give two ***** about their team.

This is a Rangers market. It was discussed on SiriusXM last fall. The Rangers dominate the tri state area ratings by more than double the Islanders and Devils combined.

No one, in a general sense, gives a damn about the Coyotes.

The Panthers? Folks don't fill the Marlins new ball park, they're going to fill the Panthers arena?

There is nothing a CBA can do to save some of these teams in the end.

Want a healthier league? Contract. Spread the real talent to less teams. Tougher more competitive league. Markets that care will survive.
If you don't understand why a team like the Rangers has the responsibility to share a percentage of their earnings to their partners I'm not going to try to explain it to you; you'll probably never get it. "Teams that matter" - what does that even mean? The Islanders/Devils/Coyotes/Pathers aren't the only teams in need as you seemed to imply. The Ducks, Carolina Hurricanes, and Stars are suffering in the current system, all teams that have won the Stanley Cup post lockout.

The most lucrative/successful sports franchise in the world shares a much larger percentage of their revenue than the NHL. But they just don't get it, right?

Quote:
Teams that generate revenue on their own merit need to fork over their money because fringe markets because they don't draw dick.
So according to you, the only teams that have the right to exist are the ones that are able to generate enough revenue to be on par with the big market teams? How would you like to see a league with a dozen teams because that's how many teams are able to function in the current CBA.

Quote:
By the way...why the hell should the Rangers need to fork over their revenue to save a team on the island that couldn't convince the county they reside in to vote to save their ass.

The county practically voted against keeping them where they are.

And the Rangers should keep them alive? Why?
The Ranger's wouldn't be "keeping them alive"... They would be contributing an incrementally larger percentage of their revenue to assure the NHL doesn't turn into the NBA where there are 6 teams that are competitive and 20+ that aren't even close. This isn't even about the Islanders/Coyotes, its about the 12-15 teams in the middle of the pack who's revenues didn't accelerate at the same rate as the Rangers/Leafs/Canadiens etc. How are these teams supposed to make any money if the cap floor is almost as high as the cap ceiling was few years ago? Arbitrary figures like the size of the local television market should not dictate whether a team is eligible for revenue sharing.

Most of this has very little to do with what I originally posted by the way.


Last edited by E Nixson: 09-01-2012 at 09:58 PM.
E Nixson is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 09:44 PM
  #893
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Shattenpants View Post
It's posts like these that make it easy to separate the fans of hockey and the fans of a specific team. If you don't understand why a team like the Rangers has the responsibility to share a percentage of their earnings to their partners I'm not going to try to explain it to you; you'll probably never get it. "Teams that matter" - what does that even mean? The Islanders/Devils/Coyotes/Pathers aren't the only teams in need as you seemed to imply. The Ducks, Carolina Hurricanes, and Stars are suffering in the current system, all teams that have won the Stanley Cup post lockout.
I support Fehr's increased revenue sharing, but this is some garbage rhetoric. The fact is that a lot of these teams and markets can't support hockey. The fact that Dallas, Carolina, and Anaheim are struggling after winning cups only validates that fact (btw Dallas' cup was pre-lockout). They're not hockey markets.

Bettman needs to stop catering to the idea of parity for the sake of the small markets. No matter how low the cap is, you're not going to see a thriving hockey scene in Sunrise, Florida. The way to go is to amp up revenue sharing and maybe slow the cap increases a bit. Let the big markets thrive and let the smaller markets enjoy the shared wealth. If they wanna use the revenue sharing money to try and compete fine. If they wanna pocket the cash, then that's fine too. Just quit *****ing about how you need help.

Zil is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 09:44 PM
  #894
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
The teams you mention that are struggling are either in a non traditional hockey market, or the ones that are in a traditional market are second fiddle to a team that dominates the market and had long established its footing.

There doesn't need to be three California teams in close enough proximity to eachother, there doesn't need to be two Florida teams, there doesn't need to be two teams in the far south west, one in a desert one in a football state.

There doesn't need to be three New York City area teams.

Winning a Stanley Cup doesn't suddenly make the market a viable long term hockey market.

You want a healthy league and you think the answer is to keep these teams on life support?

Question others fanhood of the sport because they understand something every other should already know...its a regional niche sport.There are places on this earth that no matter how hard you try, will NEVER sustain a major professional hockey team long term.

Spare the self riteous bull ****. There has been three lockouts (the third will happen) since 95. And the major underlying agenda has been how to keep those teams on life support.

Pull the plug.

The NHLPA won't allow it. And theres the issue with unions.

Unhappy with the league, go play somewhere else. Can't hack it at that level, tough ****. There are players in this league now that would never have sniffed a minute of NHL hockey 20 years ago.

Im not pro owner, im not pro player. Im pro hockey. And pro fan. But be realistic.

Unfortunately, there are some markets where the fans (in a general sense, im sure there are die hards, not nealry enough however) do not support their team enough.

Why should the Coyotes get so much help, while the Thrashers were allowed to relocate.

There are cities in North America that could probably sustain a team long term and be healthy enough where the revenue sharing wouldn't look as embarassing and in vain.

And you're sick of normal folk who actually work for a living and get 30K anually if they're lucky, feel resentment toward people whining over their billions and millions to host entertainment or to play a ****ing game.

This league will never be "healthy" as long as it blindly devotes itself to places that do not care about its product.

The Kings don't need the Ducks or Sharks to survive.


Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 09-01-2012 at 09:50 PM.
SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 11:03 PM
  #895
NYRangers16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Westchester
Posts: 1,047
vCash: 500
I think this talk of the well off teams supporting the weaker ones is looking at it all wrong. The NFL has the most revenue sharing possible(pretty much all of it is added up and divided equally). There isn't a team in that league that doesn't make money, and every single franchise has gained value over the last 10 years. The only way that's been possible is with revenue sharing. Sure, some teams generate more, others generate less. But EVERY team gains value that way, and everyone wins.

This can work in the NHL as well.

NYRangers16 is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 01:29 AM
  #896
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 11,714
vCash: 746
Quote:
I support Fehr's increased revenue sharing, but this is some garbage rhetoric. The fact is that a lot of these teams and markets can't support hockey. The fact that Dallas, Carolina, and Anaheim are struggling after winning cups only validates that fact (btw Dallas' cup was pre-lockout). They're not hockey markets.
All these teams have shown they can be hockey markets when they're winning. Truth is there's very few teams in America who can support themselves during non-winning periods. Boston was pulling 13k in attendance a few years ago. Despite what we like to believe, the Rangers had some pretty quiet arenas just 2 seasons ago on weeknights against WCF draws.

Minny, Boston, and NYC are pretty much the only American city who will keep getting support during stretches of missing the playoffs. Even then they'll see regular attendance hits. Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim have all shown they can be hockey markets under the right conditions. Dallas was in the top 10 of revenue for almost a decade until Hicks put his eggs in too many baskets. All 3 of those markets have suffered from ownership issues affecting the on-ice product moreso than no fans.

Higher HRR is there to prop up the teams who need it at the time. 8years ago it was Pittsburg, Chicago, Boston, etc being propped up by Dallas, Colorado, etc. Look at those teams now. In 8 more years who knows, maybe the Flyers and Rangers will be in a dark time and need support from a market like Anaheim who became a contender and is experiencing high revenue. Fix the system, not the symptoms.

MetalGodAOD is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 05:55 AM
  #897
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
So, when commissioner Gary Bettman talks of needing a new financial system to make his NHL work, he isn’t talking about anything that relates to Toronto hockey. He isn’t talking about us, at all. In fact, quietly the owners of the Leafs — Bell, Rogers and Larry Tanenbaum — must cringe every time they hear Bettman’s rhetoric: Their business has never been better while their team has rarely been worse.

Nothing will come of this eventual deal between players and owners that will help Toronto hockey. But the setback can’t possibly be as troubling as it was seven years ago. In truth, the Leafs still haven’t recovered from the lost year and who knows when the real recovery will begin
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/01...ont-help-leafs

This next CBA won't be the big market NHL teams friend. Lower caps. More tightness in the system. Bettman made a comment two weeks ago after meeting with Fehr in Toronto. He wants the system which the NHL envisioned in 2005.

I read there will be a Board of Governors meeting this week in Manhattan.


Last edited by RangerBoy: 09-02-2012 at 06:05 AM.
RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 06:42 AM
  #898
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
The owners did every thing the could to force a lockout last time. That's a widely held consensus, not anti-bettman rhetoric. They fought hard for this cap, this formula for contracts, for that percentage split. They gloated over those results. They happily gave up a lower ufa age to flood the market in june.

So no, you don't approach the table, a few weeks after one of the whiniest owners handed out twin record deals to twin 2nd tier players and offer that abomination of a deal. You come hat in hand and say "it's broken, we screwed up, let's fix it together."

This isn't on the players. The owners should have been working on a system that works for the last two years. Like any bettman deal, this cba will be a win for the players and the small market won't be sustainable... blah blah blah. Same old story. This is an ownership issue. They break their own rules and throw money at mediocrity because their isn't enough talent. Guarantee they have something in the deal giving a new franchise fee to the owners. They'll get their money that way, then give it right back when the star talent is diluted.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 06:55 AM
  #899
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
This is a 26 team league. Higher talent, better chances of playoffs, less travel, more rivalries, sustainable markets.

Fewer teams means they all have a star. It means Drury and Parise don't get record deals.

I have a hard time believing 30+ accomplished businessmen can't grasp that concept. Business sense was sacrificed to get teams in every market, to speed up the growth and land a national tv deal. Something has to happen to the brain trust before they create a good deal.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 07:14 AM
  #900
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: north finchley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,921
vCash: 500
if you look at it in terms of teams that can support themselves, there are too many teams now. if the players want to keep all those extra jobs, it's not crazy to support some sort of revenue sharing. if there was really a free market and 5 or 6 teams had to fold, that's about 125 or more nhl roster spots, plus all the other jobs that get cut. so it does make sense in that regard for the players to support revenue sharing. i know there's way more to it, but just figured that was a salient point to mention.

egelband 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 08:07 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.