NBC needs programming. Live sports programming. Comcast. Both sides are so stupid. The NHL made that stupid offer. Then they moved a little bit. The players made 1 offer. Both sides won't move until the other side moves. They still have time to get a deal and start the season in early November. Play 82 games. Both sides get all of their money. The NHL lost the preseason money. $100M. They'll make it up next season if they play a full season in 12-13.
Fox is turning Speed Channel in "Fox Sports One", a broad based sports network that will go up against ESPN and NBC Sports. NASCAR and MLB will make up the bulk of the content.
the league bringing in scab players would be the worst possible thing it could do. worse than locking out the entire season
I would love that, just for the NHL to make a bigger joke out of themselves, and have NO ONE show up for any games, and prove that what makes the NHL money are the players and the product they put on the ice. No one can replace them.
Replacement players? The NHL can't use them for the Habs and Canucks.
Quote:
Would the N.H.L. dare to employ replacement players?
Such speculation inevitably arises as the lockout approaches its fourth week. After all, the N.F.L. did it in 1987, as did Major League Baseball during 1995 spring training. Bill Watters, a former Maple Leafs general manager and player agent, has suggested as recently as last week that the N.H.L. might use replacement players if the lockout drags on into November.
But it can’t happen, at least not according to Canadian law.
Two provinces have laws that make it illegal for employers to hire replacements for locked-out or striking workers. In Quebec in 1977, Premier René Lévesque enacted labor laws banning replacement workers. And in 1993, British Columbia outlawed the use of replacement workers.
A similar law was passed in Ontario in 1993, but it was repealed two years later, leaving Quebec and British Columbia the only provinces today to forbid the hiring of replacements.
During the 1994-95 MLB strike,the owners used replacement players and it was a disaster. Peter Angelos refused to use replacement players in spring training.
Quote:
One player on the AHL/NHL bubble that would likely be asked to take part in any theoretical “replacement player” scenario was quick and forthright in their response when asked if they would cross over.
“There’s no way. That kind of thing stays with you for your entire career,” said the player. “Guys want to make it to the NHL the right way and be accepted by the brotherhood of players. That would never happen for anybody that crossed the lines while the lockout is going on. Good luck finding players willing to do that.”
Good luck finding a player to be a replacement player when you know management is using you to make a deal with the union. They are going to toss you away like a piece of rotten fruit when a deal is made. The player has the title "scab" attached to them. What was accomplished?
Yeah, I personally wouldn't acknowledge a season with replacement players. I might watch a game or two for a laugh, but I certainly wouldn't look at the NYR as the NYR with a bunch of minor league players donning the uniform. No thanks.
I'd watch, the replacements are human just like the regular players. Many of the replacements are people who either will make the NHL or have played in the NHL, it's not like your corner bodega cashier will be suiting up. If they're wearing the uniform then they're on the team and will be remembered for being so in all the books.
I want to see the NHL have the audacity to charge what they charge for tickets to see replacement players. Replacement players are illegal in BC and Quebec. Not doable.
I will absolutely not watch if they get replacement players.
I am interested, though, how much tickets would cost.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
I want to see the NHL have the audacity to charge what they charge for tickets to see replacement players. Replacement players are illegal in BC and Quebec. Not doable.
They already have the audacity to charge 100% for meaningless pre-season games...not sure how it's any worse to charge the same for regular season games (albeit with replacement players) that actually count.
I will absolutely not watch if they get replacement players.
I am interested, though, how much tickets would cost.
they could do something like all proceeds from tickets go to charity or something....then they seem a little more "human" than the money grubbing ******** they are coming off as.
I would DEFINITELY go. Know why? I cheer for the team on the front not the name on the back and I don't care. Hockey is Hockey and if I can see scrubs play at the level I do then maybe I have a shot.
Don't get me wrong, I get it when Fehr says, and I paraphrase: We're being offered less money and fewer (contractual/system) rights, what possible reason would I recommend the players to take that deal?
I understand the righteous indignation and taking the stand, but the easy answer to that question, as posed by Fehr, is that if the players don't take less money and fewer rights, they'll get no money and no rights. I mean, if the lockout goes on all season long, the players will have given up 100 per cent of their income in a failed bid to protect 12 per cent of it. By the end of the October, the players will likely have lost as much money in salary as the NHL wants to take from them in the first year of a new CBA. And if the game goes through a year-long lockout, and the players come back to the same "linked" system CBA, how much more than 12 per cent do you think their contracts will be devalued after the HRR pie shrivels up from a year-long shutdown?
Quote:
Owners, by nature, are ambitious, egocentric, competitive, volatile and irrational. While the lockout is on, that works entirely against the players. As long as the lockout continues, the owners are going to take and take and take some more from the players, including, if need be, 100 per cent of the players' salaries. But the minute the lockout ends and games are being played again, all that ambition, ego, competitiveness, volatility and irrationality works entirely in the players' favor because these owners are going to give and give and give some more to the players.
That's how it worked in 2004-05 and the ensuing seven years and as long as the NHLPA maintains some trigger points or system leverages in a new CBA -- be it salary arbitration or unrestricted free agency or whatever -- the owners will proceed to give back a lot of what they took away. It's how the game is played.
So when the players say they gave (salary cap) and gave (24 per cent rollback) and gave some more (entry level restrictions etc.) in 2004-05, that's accurate. But the flip side of the equation, which the players don't mention as much, is once they started playing games again, they got and got and got some more.
Quote:
And, to a very large degree, for many of the players, that concept of taking less than 100 per cent of their 20102-13 salary is the emotional flashpoint of this entire lockout. That, in my opinion, is the single biggest reason for NHLPA solidarity.
The players, especially those who signed big contracts in the summer, think it's immoral that the owners who willingly and eagerly signed these deals could escape by paying less than full value.
Although, it must be duly noted, that in the old CBA that linked salaries to revenue, no contract was ever guaranteed for 100 per cent of its value. That value fluctuates from year to year, based on a number of market factors: increases or decreases in revenue; increases or decreases in the players' share of revenue; over spending or under spending on salaries by the owners.
That's why three years ago, for example, every player's contract was devalued by 12.88 per cent and six years ago, the value of every player's contract was actually increased by 4.64 per cent.
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
I would love that, just for the NHL to make a bigger joke out of themselves, and have NO ONE show up for any games, and prove that what makes the NHL money are the players and the product they put on the ice. No one can replace them.
Maybe true but I pay to see the "NY Rangers" insignia in MSG as well as the players.
I might be alone but I don't root for the Rangers stars who are traded. I root for the uniform.
With that said, subpar players will never be a long term draw.
Last edited by ltrangerfan: 10-12-2012 at 06:15 PM.
Only if Glatt and the Russian brothers come with him too
But yeah, if the league played with replacement players (which I think it's more than obvious won't happen) I'd say it would take me a little bit to warm up to them, but in the end I'd be there.
And THAT'S why this league can get away with lockout after lockout. Suckers like me
