HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2012, 11:34 PM
  #276
SCP Guy
Registered User
 
SCP Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Peg
Country: Portugal
Posts: 2,006
vCash: 500
Players have really lost my support in this battle thanks to Fehr.....

I now want what's best for the Jets and that is a win for the owners!!!!

Screw the players I hope they get burnt

SCP Guy is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:14 AM
  #277
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
While I'm more of a "they both need to make comprimises pool" I will tell you why you could take those points and still be on the owners side:

Actually I'll just summarize cos it will take a lot to explain it all. If you go to nhlnumbers.com there have been many good articles that have shown that:
The losing $$ owners have been exponentially increasing in losing money
The owners who spend more do consist of a larger percentage of the teams who go into the playoffs
The UFA system is controlled by supply and demand and other qualities of free markets; ie: it isn't an option for them to not attempt to make the contract decisions they make.

Also with the hardcap for lockout: it was to show how they wouldn't play with the old cba which was what Fehr wanted/asked for. Most speculate because Fehr wanted a late strike to shift the power to the players.
Furthermore, regarding the last point, the owners wouldbhave been idiots to agree. Given the foot dragging the nhlpas done they wouldntbhave "negotiated" until a week before they wantes to strike.

Grind is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 09:30 AM
  #278
Sabadecade
Sec304 STH & WL#1882
 
Sabadecade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Winnipeg MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Furthermore, regarding the last point, the owners wouldbhave been idiots to agree. Given the foot dragging the nhlpas done they wouldntbhave "negotiated" until a week before they wantes to strike.
I agree that there seemed to be some of this "foot dragging", perhaps a little by both parties that was used as leverage to get a deal done before the current CBA expires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Also with the hardcap for lockout: it was to show how they wouldn't play with the old cba which was what Fehr wanted/asked for. Most speculate because Fehr wanted a late strike to shift the power to the players.
I for one, think that's exactly the reason why Fehr was saying they'd play under the old CBA, not to mention it makes the league look like bad guys for imposing a lockout.

I'd like to see a clause in the new CBA that a subsequent CBA is completed prior to the expiration of the previous one or BOTH NHL and NHLPA are held accountable to their fans via some kind of penalty (i.e. they have to keep playing but all ticket prices are 25% off or something)

Sabadecade is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 09:50 AM
  #279
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabadecade View Post
I agree that there seemed to be some of this "foot dragging", perhaps a little by both parties that was used as leverage to get a deal done before the current CBA expires.



I for one, think that's exactly the reason why Fehr was saying they'd play under the old CBA, not to mention it makes the league look like bad guys for imposing a lockout.

I'd like to see a clause in the new CBA that a subsequent CBA is completed prior to the expiration of the previous one or BOTH NHL and NHLPA are held accountable to their fans via some kind of penalty (i.e. they have to keep playing but all ticket prices are 25% off or something)
I think these people you talk about are on milk cartons or something... the players and owners don't know who they are. lol

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 10:59 AM
  #280
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCP Guy View Post
Players have really lost my support in this battle thanks to Fehr.....

I now want what's best for the Jets and that is a win for the owners!!!!

Screw the players I hope they get burnt
If you want the Jets to remain in Winnipeg for the long haul, you have to be in favour of any CBA that gives more of a chance to small market teams. If this requires a lockout then so be it. The only reason TNSE ever thought about bringing the NHL back to Winnipeg was because of the previous lockouts that tried to bring in some cost certainty.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 12:50 PM
  #281
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
While I'm more of a "they both need to make comprimises pool" I will tell you why you could take those points and still be on the owners side:

Actually I'll just summarize cos it will take a lot to explain it all. If you go to nhlnumbers.com there have been many good articles that have shown that:
The losing $$ owners have been exponentially increasing in losing money
The owners who spend more do consist of a larger percentage of the teams who go into the playoffs
The UFA system is controlled by supply and demand and other qualities of free markets; ie: it isn't an option for them to not attempt to make the contract decisions they make.

Also with the hardcap for lockout: it was to show how they wouldn't play with the old cba which was what Fehr wanted/asked for. Most speculate because Fehr wanted a late strike to shift the power to the players.
Which still comes to my point about "it's a business"

The NHL went to the NHLPA and said "Hey we need a cap and a salary rollback then we will be all fine." except they werent. exponential losses etc. Now the NHL comes back with an idnticle offer demanding basically the same things they already got in the last stoppagew but slightly tweeked, this time for sure it'll work they say....

The business model is flawed. Why do something again tthat didn't work the first time?

The NHL teams that lose money are in the wrong markets, or have bad leases, or just plain are fibbing about thier numbers(most likely) either you can afford a team and make it pay(TNSE!!!) or you can't. So if the league is a business like tthe owners say, put the teams where they are successful and let the losers fail, or do what the NHLPA has said needs to be done, and fix the revenue share. If the league wants to go after the fantasy of a huge American TV contract like the NFL gets then the league money makers need to pony up some more dough to ensure the survival of marginal teams until they get the contract. If you are business owner you put a franchise in a location where it will make money, if your trying to grow into a nontraditional market you need to support that store financialy until it becomes profitable. that's not so hard to figure out.

Also I keep hearing about how the owners have all the power here? Really? The KHL owners are salavating at the thought of the NHL lockout lasting a season or more so guys like Sid the Kid and Ovie, and Stamkos will be out looking for jobs.

People like me won't walk away from hockey, but the almighty "new and casual fans": the NHL covets in the USA might never turn on the game again if there is a reign of never ending labour strife in the league.

Free market for players is wholly controlled by the owners. always has been always will be. For the owners to go out and demand a rollback on contracts already negotiated....is horrible. The players are willing to slow future salary growth but they see no reason, and I agree with them, why they should rollback salaries again.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 01:41 PM
  #282
CallADocPlease
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
I'm firmly on the players side this time. The owners started with a very difficult to swallow initial offer so that offers like this would look better. My honest opinion is the the fairest way to go about this would be signing an 8 year contract, that started at 56% HRR for the players and dropped 0.5% of HRR per year to end at 52%. With this would come increased revenue sharing and contracts being capped at 8 years. I could also see the players also giving up and accepting a 4th year to entry level contracts in exchange for keeping a higher salary.

CallADocPlease is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 02:12 PM
  #283
sully1410
Registered User
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Turner Valley, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,167
vCash: 500
The problem is that the problem wasnt fixed the last time. There are huge inherent flaws in the system, and unless they are corrected we'll be here again in 6years again.

The players need to take a pay cut, the cap needs to go down and there needs to be a roll back. It is what it is.

But even at that...six years from now, small market teams will still be floundering. Salary cuts are nothing more then band aids to a torn Aorta. The owners need to rack their brains and implement a much better revenue sharing system.

Both sides have to give here in order for this to be successful and to give this league the opportunity to be successful.

I'm more mad at the players. They waited until the last possible second to issue their alternate view. If that's the way you want to run your negotiation then it should have started last summer. Maybe you don't start negotiating, but you start putting together your detailed revenue sharing plan. Hell as long as Fehr knows the players position he can negotiate while the players play. There's no reason why the couldn't have met once a week, maybe bi-weekly to get this sorted out.

If there is a lockout, it's on the players for not getting this started sooner. Bettman has said he was waited on the PA since day one. Learn your lesson from last time and get started.

/rant.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 02:50 PM
  #284
s1g
Registered User
 
s1g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 332
vCash: 500
The day I side with the owners is the day they come out and say "We want to cut players' salaries so that it's so affordable, the average working family will be able to come to games once a month", and actually follow through by lowering ticket prices. Hell, if you're going to save money on players' salaries, why not pass some of those savings along to the people working in the concession stands and parking lots during games? The ones who get paid next to nothing.

I just can't side with the owners. Too much greed.

s1g is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 03:14 PM
  #285
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
The day I side with the owners is the day they come out and say "We want to cut players' salaries so that it's so affordable, the average working family will be able to come to games once a month", and actually follow through by lowering ticket prices. Hell, if you're going to save money on players' salaries, why not pass some of those savings along to the people working in the concession stands and parking lots during games? The ones who get paid next to nothing.

I just can't side with the owners. Too much greed.
Take a few Economics courses and you will have all the answers to those speculations...

Also, cutting while still making a profit DOES happen in markets but it usually happens for a particular reason with a set number of conditions... the NHL as a whole does not have most (if any) of these.

Greed is why you wan't the prices to be down. Greed is why the players want more money instead of giving up to a more market standard in pro sports. Greed is why inflation is almost always up and constant. Greed is all around.


Last edited by garret9: 09-13-2012 at 03:31 PM.
garret9 is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 03:28 PM
  #286
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
The business model is flawed. Why do something again that didn't work the first time?
Because the players, the owners, and both you and I do not know if the model isn't working because it needs adjustments or because the model does not work at all. There has been success in the other major sports with variations of the current model so that dictates it is likely that a cap system could work, just it's not there yet. Don't confuse those two things. Like I said before I think they need to find a compromise to the system.

But I don't think the players are any better than the owners by saying:
1) they want pre-calculated raises that would only amount to a hypothetical pay cut from what they would be getting IF the NHL continues to expand at record breaking numbers (which is unlikely since it is record breaking). Any regression to a more standard growth and the players are actually asking for raises when some ships in the fleet are sinking.
2) they won't budge on their ideal percentage when the owners are trying hard to negotiate by moving back and forth percentage points in a normal negotiating manner
3) the owners are bad because they want to lock them out when the owners were trying hard to make a deal MONTHS ago and the players hadn't placed down their position in the negotiations until weeks ago

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Free market for players is wholly controlled by the owners. always has been always will be. For the owners to go out and demand a rollback on contracts already negotiated....is horrible. The players are willing to slow future salary growth but they see no reason, and I agree with them, why they should rollback salaries again.
Free market is not controlled by owners. It's controlled by supply and demand with standard game theory. You can think that maybe if we had "good will" owners they would be better at controlling the prices but there is too much to gain by them signing a player and hopefully becoming a winning team. Look at the OPEC fiasco years ago. It doesn't work like that. It's basic game theory. The best they can do is try to control the prices with rules and rollbacks as much as they can until there is a source like for example the NFL/TV contracts.

They want to keep the teams afloat even in nontraditional markets until there is an alternate source of revenue like the national TV markets. It may not work but is fine for them to try, since they are the owners.

garret9 is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 03:34 PM
  #287
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallADocPlease View Post
I'm firmly on the players side this time. The owners started with a very difficult to swallow initial offer so that offers like this would look better. My honest opinion is the the fairest way to go about this would be signing an 8 year contract, that started at 56% HRR for the players and dropped 0.5% of HRR per year to end at 52%. With this would come increased revenue sharing and contracts being capped at 8 years. I could also see the players also giving up and accepting a 4th year to entry level contracts in exchange for keeping a higher salary.
I'd prefer that they work something similar to this but a more short-term, quickfix... but then right away start negotiating a new CBA with the intention of forming an HRR plan that works better for the NHL and players

garret9 is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 04:07 PM
  #288
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,163
vCash: 500
I guess I should start following the KHL now, Ice Hockey between classes.

Concordski is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 04:22 PM
  #289
Hammer Slammer
Moderator
 
Hammer Slammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,796
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Hammer Slammer
^Yep. The owners unanimously approved a lockout if needed. So I guess unless the PA caves in we're lockout-bound.

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/sta...35176773361665

Time to learn Russian and start watching the KHL. At least NFL season is here.

__________________
Hammer Slammer is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 04:27 PM
  #290
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBryanRoleModel View Post
I guess I should start following the KHL now, Ice Hockey between classes.
I'm already on board. Slovan Bratislava (I am a Slovak fan, due to Palffy mostly, but Visnovsky, Chara, Gaborik, Bondra, Demitra are all very high on my favourite players of all-time list ) is my favourite team. They play Vityaz Saturday at 9am, gonna try at catch it. Miroslav Satan is playing for them, Palffy is expected to sign soon. They're not great though, just 1-2-1, lost to Dinamo Minsk today (no points for Stapleton, but he is leading the team with 3g, 4pts in 4gp). Former Manitoba Moose Mario Bliznak plays for Slovan as well.

Also partial to Dinamo Minsk (Stapleton, I tend to like Belarus internationally since the 02 Olympics), Barys Astana (Two WPGers on that team doing very well, Nigel Dawes and Dustin Boyd), and Lokomotiv (obvious reasons). Gotta love the passion of the fans of Riga and Amur.

I dislike Lev Praha (as a Slovak fan I have to right?) and Donbass (abusing homegrown player rules, good team but at the expense of Ukraine hockey, whereas all other teams are obeying foreign limits/homegrown minimums).

__________________


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 09-13-2012 at 04:36 PM.
Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 04:50 PM
  #291
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,770
vCash: 500
How about we shut down all the teams that aren't making a profit, and leave the 75% less jobs for the players to fight over. Then they can talk about sharing the profits.

GrandChelems is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 05:11 PM
  #292
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,613
vCash: 500
Little bit of give a take is needed. So...

The league wants to get players % down (likely to 50/50), but the players don't want to reduce what they are being paid now. So if the players kept their salary $ (in monetary terms) flat for 3 yrs, the $1.9 (ish) billion and then went 50/50 thereafter, chances are - with modest league revenue growth each yr - they would not have to take a cut in pay. Owners get to 50/50 by yr 3 or 4. So, said another way, keep the cap ceiling at about $64 mill same as last yr - for next 3 yrs - or even, $64, $65, $66 mill - then 50/50 split.

League saves money (as cap would have been 70+ mill at current %) and gets to 50/50 split (though takes a while), and players do not have to roll back salaries, and their total will likely continue to grow each year after year 3. And then look closely at group II and group I FA, to make sure some of loopholes are closed. Restrict length of deals to under 10 yrs, pick a number 8, 9, 10. Etc.

Right now there seems an unwillingness to move by either party, but there has to be some common ground that achieves both goals.

Bob E is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 05:24 PM
  #293
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
Little bit of give a take is needed. So...

The league wants to get players % down (likely to 50/50), but the players don't want to reduce what they are being paid now. So if the players kept their salary $ (in monetary terms) flat for 3 yrs, the $1.9 (ish) billion and then went 50/50 thereafter, chances are - with modest league revenue growth each yr - they would not have to take a cut in pay. Owners get to 50/50 by yr 3 or 4. So, said another way, keep the cap ceiling at about $64 mill same as last yr - for next 3 yrs - or even, $64, $65, $66 mill - then 50/50 split.

League saves money (as cap would have been 70+ mill at current %) and gets to 50/50 split (though takes a while), and players do not have to roll back salaries, and their total will likely continue to grow each year after year 3. And then look closely at group II and group I FA, to make sure some of loopholes are closed. Restrict length of deals to under 10 yrs, pick a number 8, 9, 10. Etc.

Right now there seems an unwillingness to move by either party, but there has to be some common ground that achieves both goals.
I've been saying this all days in the BoH forum. It's too bad both sides seem to be entrenched in their viewpoints too much to realize that this is the answer...

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 05:34 PM
  #294
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I've been saying this all days in the BoH forum. It's too bad both sides seem to be entrenched in their viewpoints too much to realize that this is the answer...
I think the owners realize this as well that's why we have seen them move towards 50% on the percentage and have continually tried to invite the players to negotiate off their framework. They arn't just going to give the players that solution because otherwise the players will ask for more.

BTW what with the latest offer by the NHL what would be the cap, 60-62 million?

surixon is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:17 PM
  #295
Reed Solomon
GO ✈'s GO
 
Reed Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,062
vCash: 500
Can you pick up KHL games on Galaxy 19 FTA? I vaguely remember some sort of hockey being aired on that satellite once.

Reed Solomon is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:29 PM
  #296
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Take a few Economics courses and you will have all the answers to those speculations....
Ah economics.. If I wanted to waste my time in university reading fantasy I'd have taken English courses.

If history has taught us one thing over and over and over again , it's that economists don't have a hot clue as to what is going to happen with the economy. they are worse than weathermen with thier predictions. The models are based on an erroneous assumption that the market will behave rationaly. Again history shows us that the market almost never behaves rationaly. Infact the very basis of modern capitolisim ensures that the economy is run under a kind of irational mob mentality. end rant.

anyhoo. You said we didn't know if the model worked or not, yet here we are with the Owners loudly yelling it doesn't, also we have the number you so nicely summarised for us showing teams losing at an "exponential" rate. I fail to see how minor tinkering of what is ultimatley a few million here or there over the lifetime of the CBA , will stop teams like florida from hemaoraging money. there is no way.

So again we find ourselves asking the question. why do the players have to take it on the chin so the owners can make horrible business decisions?

It's like the Auto workers Unions. The Big three all say that they can't compete because thier union wages are to high, however the real cost of those unions works out to about 1600.00 bux a unit(car,truck,SUV). Now Asian cars outsell the big three cars pretty much around the world but, and here is the crux, they cost about 3-5000 dollars more per unit. So price isn't really the driver in the market. It's design. The big three maximised profits in the 80's and 90's at the expense of quality, good design, drivability, looks, saftey, everything that consumers wanted basically. So noone wants the cars anymore. So who's fault is it really that the big three can't compete? the workers and thier salaries? or the Managment who made crap decisions and crappy ugly cars for 2 decades thereby so soiling thier reputation that noone trusts thier products anymore.

Yet here they are demanding that the worker need rollbacks and cuts while they sit around watching thier stock option bonuses flourish. again all of this while collecting anual salaries that are on average 350X the workers pay (3-5 times what thier opposite numbers in Asia and Europe make).

Soo whos fault is it?


Last edited by Skidooboy: 09-13-2012 at 07:32 PM. Reason: WOW i suck at pelling and typing! Youd never guess by that that I have a degree HAHAHA
Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:37 PM
  #297
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Ah economics.. If I wanted to waste my time in university reading fantasy I'd have taken English courses.

If history has taught us one thing over and over and over again , it's that economists don't have a hot clue as to what is going to happen with the economy. they are worse than weathermen with thier predictions. The models are based on an erroneous assumption that the market will behave rationaly. Again history shows us that the market almost never behaves rationaly. Infact the very basis of modern capitolisim ensures that the economy is run under a kind of irational mob mentality. end rant.

anyhoo. You said we didn't know if the model worked or not, yet here we are with the Owners loudly yelling it doesn't, also we have the number you so nicely summarised for us showing teams losing at an "exponential" rate. I fail to see how minor tinkering of what is ultimatley a few million here or there over the lifetime of the CBA , will stop teams like florida from hemaoraging money. there is no way.

So again we find ourselves asking the question. why do the players have to take it on the chin so the owners can make horrible business decisions?

It's like the Auto workers Unions. The Big three all say that they can't compete because thier union wages are to high, however the real cost of those unions works out to about 1600.00 bux a unit(car,truck,SUV). Now Asian cars outsell the big three cars pretty much around the world but, and here is the crux, they cost about 3-5000 dollars more per unit. So price isn't really the driver in the market. It's design. The big three maximised profits in the 80's and 90's at the expense of quality, good design, drivability, looks, saftey, everything that consumers wanted basically. So noone wants the cars anymore. So who's fault is it really that the big three can't compete? the workers and thier salaries? or the Managment who made crap decisions and crappy ugly cars for 2 decades thereby so soiling thier reputation that noone trusts thier products anymore.

Yet here they are demanding that the worker need rollbacks and cuts while they sit around watching thier stock option bonuses flourish. again all of this while collecting anual salaries that are on average 350X the workers pay (3-5 times what thier opposite numbers in Asia and Europe make).

Soo whos fault is it?
I think you're having problems understanding the difference between a normative statement and a positive statement.

I gave a positive statement on how certain things have been proven to have particular relationships...
You countered with the failures of economists with normative statements.

(PS I'm not an economist, I merely took 4 courses as electives and have dabbled in similar things)

garret9 is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:36 PM
  #298
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,163
vCash: 500
Vityaz Chekov is my team, they may be the goon squad, but Zhamnov is their GM.

I found a way to watch the games online, which I believe is technically legal considering the KHL doesn't sell its product over here, but don't quote me on that.

I also have the iPhone app. Who knows, maybe I'll collect KHL cards by the time the season's over.

Concordski is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:52 PM
  #299
Diatidialga
Registered User
 
Diatidialga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBryanRoleModel View Post
Vityaz Chekov is my team, they may be the goon squad, but Zhamnov is their GM.

I found a way to watch the games online, which I believe is technically legal considering the KHL doesn't sell its product over here, but don't quote me on that.

I also have the iPhone app. Who knows, maybe I'll collect KHL cards by the time the season's over.
Ah **** it, I'll watch Lacrosse and listen (Or watch on the odd televised) to Wheat Kings games, maybe some IceCaps games.

Diatidialga is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:54 PM
  #300
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
I think you're having problems understanding the difference between a normative statement and a positive statement.

I gave a positive statement on how certain things have been proven to have particular relationships...
You countered with the failures of economists with normative statements.

(PS I'm not an economist, I merely took 4 courses as electives and have dabbled in similar things)
Normative? Wow your really 101ing me now, Bringing out the discipline specific lingo!


1. your statment was infact Normative. You said that the model would LIKLEY work. normative statment nes pas? the Positive statment would be to say the model doesn't work.

"Exponential losses" tells me right away that the deal isn't working.The owners screaming to the heavens that the system is broken, tells me the same. Exponential losses arent something you just "tinker" away. If they are allowed to tinker it will end up back here in three or four years again. Again. AGAIN!!!!

which all goes back to my original point. is it a charity club where rich powerful owners support weakerones?, Or, is it a business where Teams that can't make it need to move, or fold and be sold and bought and moved for whoever puts up the bux. Right now the owners tell us they are a business when it's convenient to them, but act an awful lot like a private club when it suits them. Either way The players did what was asked last time, watched record revenues occur , onlybe asked to take a hit again so a few billionaires who made bad decisions about the viability of thier hockey markets can be propped up.

Skidooboy 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 12:01 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.