HFBoards

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

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 04:52 PM
  #826
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I have not been able to find out how many professional leagues there are in the world, unfortunately. However, there do seem to be leagues in far more contries than I ever imagined, and they are paying salaries of varying amount. Obviously, the salaries are at least enough for people to earn a living at them because they ARE attracting those North American players who do not make the NHL.

I won't only focus on North American leagues because it is incorrect to dismiss leagues around the world that players can go to in order to pursue their dream while still earning a living there. Whether or not the living is comparable to NHL salaries was never the argument, that is just a new side issue being tossed up by DAChampion as a smoke screen to cover his screwup with his numbers. He didn't realize that there were other paying leagues wolrd wide...unless he truly believes people making less than 6 figure salaries are failures, of course. Considering some of his views of teachers and common "Joe Blows", I am starting to fear for him on that point, though...

Keep in mind, he was trying to say anyone who isn't earning a living playing hockey was a failure, and that was where he came up with his 98-99% because he didn't count all of the other leagues that pay people to play hockey. His math was off and he is unwilling to admit it, that is all.
Will you ever stop whining? "ECHL players are successful !!!! they make more money than I do !!!! "

I mean seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for not being happy with your station in life. Here's a hint: nearly everybody has someone else richer than them in the world. If you don't like your station, start working harder, but STOP whining for the love of God.

And yes, if somebody is making tremendous sacrifices in the CHL at ages 15, 16, 17, etc, to try and make the NHL, and then they end up in the ECHL making $400/week (aka poverty), then they are a failure. The fact there are other leagues worldwide is something everybody knows, even you, but it's also something that's largely irrelevant and hence was not included in the discussion. The KHL plays well but they have quotas on foreign players. It's not what those CHL kids are going for when they make sacrifices as teenagers. For far less effort the vast majority of them could end up with better jobs here.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:00 PM
  #827
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
As has been explained to you, several times,

Yes, it HAS been "explained" several times. The problem is WITH the explanation.
It is the fans who pay the costs. Carey Price's 6.5 million/year doesn't come from Geoff Molson, it comes from the fans. If the fans didn't pack the Bell Center, and didn't tune in to RDS with high ratings, Carey Price would be destined for free agency.

The owners pay everything necessary to run the business, not just Price's salary. The owners pay everything. Yes, when possible, they use the money generated by sales related to hockey. However, when those sales are not enough, they pay out of their own pockets. They also pay to purchase the teams (Molson sure wasn't "given" the Habs, he paid $500 000 000 for the team!)

The Montreal Expos, who had far, FAR richer owners than the Montreal Canadiens have ever had, did not have fans in appreciable numbers. Did the owners "pay a cent" ??? No, they made a small profit every year, and everybody from Larry Walker through to Pedro Martinez opted for free agency. As with the Montreal Canadiens, the owners didn't paay any costs. However, the fans paid more.
As I said, the Molson's paid 500 million dollars for the Habs. Yes, Montreal fans ultimately pay the Habs' bills, but that does not mean the owners are not paying everything. They are still paying everything, they are simply using the money from their successful franchise. If the franchise starts to do really poorly, the Molson's will still be paying the bills without the fan revenue. Just ask teams like the Islanders.

So now you want to penalize successful owners because they CAN turn a profit? That is your new argument? Since the owners that are successful are using revenues from fans to pay the bills, the owners do not deserve a fair split of the overall revenues?? Surely you can see the absurdity of that notion.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:02 PM
  #828
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Why is this relevant anyway?

What if there's a partnership with a group of investors, are they allowed to ask for more money now? Seems very weird that this is even brought up.
Lyrical,

The reason the 30 owners and 700 players is brought up is because a lot of people are fixated on the number "50/50". 50% is just another number on the real number line between 0 and 100, it is in no way superior or inferior to all the other numbers.

People think it's symmetric, but it's not:

- Some costs are subtracted before HRR is calculated, and some are not.
- Owners and players pay different tax rates -- players pay much higher tax rates.
- A lot of revenues are not included in HRR, most significant are expansion and relocation fees.
- Additionally, a lot of owners profit comes from eventually selling their teams, which is not included in HRR.
- Players typically take more risks to become NHL players than owners do to achieve their positions. Players also put their lives and health on their line and are always at risk of losing everything, whereas the same is not true of owners.
- There are 700 players and 29 owners.
- The players are less replaceable. If the 30 owners sold their product tomorrow to 30 other billionaires, no fan would be able to tell the difference. The same is not true if all the players were replaced.

There's nothing symmetric about 50/50 at all, it's merely a marketing gimmick targeted to low-IQ types, and thus to anyone with a brain it is unnervingly successful.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-19-2012 at 05:09 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:11 PM
  #829
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Actually, the players ONLY want to be "partners" in regards to the owners' HRR. Never mind sharing the costs, they won't even share their own HRR that they get from endorsements, appearance fees, autograph signings, etc... Keep that in mind.

The players do not want any part of paying any costs or sharing their own revenue outside of their salaries. They "only" want over 50% of the owners' HRR and 100% guaranteed contracts that are not tied to any kind of performance levels at all. Wow, talk about being "fair".
Is there some precedence out there in the real world where players share the costs? Does it happen in the NFL? How about the NBA? Or is "sharing the costs" just some ideologically driven utopian vision?

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:18 PM
  #830
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Is there some precedence out there in the real world where players share the costs? Does it happen in the NFL? How about the NBA? Or is "sharing the costs" just some ideologically driven utopian vision?
1) Fans pay all the professional costs.
2) Some costs are subtracted from HRR, so players pay 57% of those if you choose to ignore the fans, aka ignore reality.
3) Players families handle most development costs.

How much money do you think it costs players families for the players to become players?

I mean, if I had a 3 year-old now who had a talent for ice hockey, I don't know that I would be able to afford the money (or the time) development necessary for him to have a legitimate shot at the NHL. It must be $10,000/year right? And a lot of time?

Max Pacioretty's parents had to get up at 5am to take him to the ice when he was a kid.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:22 PM
  #831
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Will you ever stop whining? "ECHL players are successful !!!! they make more money than I do !!!! "

I mean seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for not being happy with your station in life. Here's a hint: nearly everybody has someone else richer than them in the world. If you don't like your station, start working harder, but STOP whining for the love of God.

Lol. Again with the personal attacks. Every time you are incapable of arguing you try to derail the topic with insults. For an educated academic who did SOOOOO well on his SAT scores you really engage in debate and discussion with all of the intelligence and capacity of a grade school bully. Luckily, I am used to unruly children (P.S. you might actually want to look up the word "whining" and try to understand how incorrectly you have used it throughout this thread).

And yes, if somebody is making tremendous sacrifices in the CHL at ages 15, 16, 17, etc, to try and make the NHL, and then they end up in the ECHL making $400/week (aka poverty), then they are a failure. The fact there are other leagues worldwide is something everybody knows, even you, but it's also something that's largely irrelevant and hence was not included in the discussion. The KHL plays well but they have quotas on foreign players. It's not what those CHL kids are going for when they make sacrifices as teenagers. For far less effort the vast majority of them could end up with better jobs here.


Anyone who is earning a living in their chosen profession, be it hockey players making $400 per week, or $4 000 000 per year, be it a teacher at $45 000 per year or a University professor at $200 000 per year, is not to be considered a failure. Especially (and this is the part our educated academic with the high SAT scores seems to have totally missed) if that person is doing what he/she wants to do. The guy playing for $400 per week in the ECHL because it is what he loves and wants to do is NOT a failure and you should be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing. You can not feel shame, though, since you seem to be quite the elitist snob who values and judges others based on their level of income. I do pity people like you.

Keep in mind, insulting me won't change your incorrect 98-99% error (nor any of the other MULTIPLE mistakes and misperceptions you have made in this thread), and the harder you try to bother me the better I feel based on how you make yourself appear. It is quite funny to see, in all honesty.

I will try to help you with one misperception you keep making: I LOVE what I do. To me there is actually NOTHING better to be doing than teaching High School kids and helping prepare them for the world that awaits them. I have had opportunities to go into other fields and to make more money. I refused them because I LOVE what I do. You keep attacking me as a person, though, without any knowledge of who I am, what I do, or why. It is obvious, based on how you research the subjects you deal with, that you must have cheated to get those SAT scores...or lied about them.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:23 PM
  #832
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
As I said, the Molson's paid 500 million dollars for the Habs. Yes, Montreal fans ultimately pay the Habs' bills, but that does not mean the owners are not paying everything. They are still paying everything, they are simply using the money from their successful franchise. If the franchise starts to do really poorly, the Molson's will still be paying the bills without the fan revenue. Just ask teams like the Islanders.

So now you want to penalize successful owners because they CAN turn a profit? That is your new argument? Since the owners that are successful are using revenues from fans to pay the bills, the owners do not deserve a fair split of the overall revenues?? Surely you can see the absurdity of that notion.
In case you ever teach economics:

The fact Molson paid 500 million for the (Habs + The Bell Center) tells you that the (Habs + The Bell Center) are already extremely profitable. We know that the Habs in and of themselves make a profit of 50 million/year, which probably doesn't justify a 500 million dollar investment. However, there is no doubt that the Bell Center is extremely profitable as well, and that together they justify a 500 million dollar investment.

I remember that George Gillette was crying at the press conference when he sold the (Habs + The Bell Center). He didn't want to. It was a bad deal for him, but his hands were tied due to a bad investment he made in European soccer. He screwed up, and he paid a price.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:30 PM
  #833
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Anyone who is earning a living in their chosen profession, be it hockey players making $400 per week, or $4 000 000 per year, be it a teacher at $45 000 per year or a University professor at $200 000 per year, is not to be considered a failure. Especially (and this is the part our educated academic with the high SAT scores seems to have totally missed) if that person is doing what he/she wants to do. The guy playing for $400 per week in the ECHL because it is what he loves and wants to do is NOT a failure and you should be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing. You can not feel shame, though, since you seem to be quite the elitist snob who values and judges others based on their level of income. I do pity people like you.

Keep in mind, insulting me won't change your incorrect 98-99% error (nor any of the other MULTIPLE mistakes and misperceptions you have made in this thread), and the harder you try to bother me the better I feel based on how you make yourself appear. It is quite funny to see, in all honesty.

I will try to help you with one misperception you keep making: I LOVE what I do. To me there is actually NOTHING better to be doing than teaching High School kids and helping prepare them for the world that awaits them. I have had opportunities to go into other fields and to make more money. I refused them because I LOVE what I do. You keep attacking me as a person, though, without any knowledge of who I am, what I do, or why. It is obvious, based on how you research the subjects you deal with, that you must have cheated to get those SAT scores...or lied about them.
The guy playing for $400/week in the ECHL is doing so because he has limited options and he thinks he might be able to improve his station within hockey. It worked for some players, like David Desharnais who is getting a serious raise in about 8 months. Olaf Kolzig and countable others have also spent time in the ECHL.

Look at David Fischer for example. He was loosely dedicated to hockey. Not enough to get an ELC from the Canadiens, but enough to achieve what you call "success" as he has an ECHL contract, he is part of the 98%. When he was in university, at the University of Minnesota, a respectable institution, he majored in "communication studies", which is what you major in if you want a piece of paper that says "degree" but you don't have the liberty to work hard like someone in pre-med for example. He's now in the ECHL, probably making $400/week. I'm sure that's not his dream. If it's a stepping stone to better things, then it's a stepping stone to better things, he can still salvage a decent career if he's lucky and does everything right. If that's as far as he goes, then he's a failure.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:36 PM
  #834
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Is there some precedence out there in the real world where players share the costs?

Not that I know of.

Does it happen in the NFL? How about the NBA? Or is "sharing the costs" just some ideologically driven utopian vision?
If the players are claiming that they are partners and want more of the HRR than the owners who DO pay the costs (contrary to what a certain educated academic wants to claim) should get, then ,maybe they should invest in the actual costs of the business. You stated you owned a business. Do YOU pay your employees or are they paid by the revenue your business brings in? Are the employees responsible for those revenues, at least in part? Do YOU give 50% of your revenues to your employees? The answer is "no". Almost no business gives 50% of their revenues to either employees OR partners who do not actually share in any of the costs in the business. That is called reality, not some ideological utopian vision.


Last edited by Drydenwasthebest: 10-19-2012 at 05:55 PM.
Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:53 PM
  #835
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Lyrical,

The reason the 30 owners and 700 players is brought up is because a lot of people are fixated on the number "50/50". 50% is just another number on the real number line between 0 and 100, it is in no way superior or inferior to all the other numbers.

Incorrect. The 50/50 split is brought up because it is seen as an acceptable and fair standard in a partnership when discussing the division of revenue between 2 entities.

People think it's symmetric, but it's not:

- Some costs are subtracted before HRR is calculated, and some are not. All of which is agreed to by both the payers and the owners.
- Owners and players pay different tax rates -- players pay much higher tax rates.Care to offer proof rather than just your dubious word?
- A lot of revenues are not included in HRR, most significant are expansion and relocation fees. The benefits they receive from both expansion and relocation are actually already significant. In the case of expansion, more jobs and, ideally, money enters the business of the NHL when a new team enters. Which significantly benefits the players. As far as relocation goes, the players benefit because none of them lose their jobs due to a contraction and there is still the same number of teams to bring revenue into the business..
- Additionally, a lot of owners profit comes from eventually selling their teams, which is not included in HRR.Why would players get money from the sale of a team? Not a single player put money into purchasing the team, why are they entitled to any money from its sale??
- Players typically take more risks to become NHL players than owners do to achieve their positions. That is not necessarily true. There were plenty of owners who took as many or more risks as any player to achieve their current positions in the world. Pleas, go back and look through the thread to read about a few of them. Players also put their lives and health on their line and are always at risk of losing everything, whereas the same is not true of owners.
- There are 700 players and 29 owners.Irrelevant. There are 2 entities in regards to the business arguing over the HRR: the Owners and the Players.
- The players are less replaceable. If the 30 owners sold their product tomorrow to 30 other billionaires, no fan would be able to tell the difference. The same is not true if all the players were replaced.So incorrect as to be beyond funny. There are not that many billionaires running around who want to run a sports franchise or a league. Also, we replace players every year. If all of the players died tomorrow (heaven forbid, please) we fans of the Habs and Leafs and etc.. would watch whomever they found to repopulate the NHL with. In fact, if the NHL brought replacement players in tomorrow, there would be a significant number of fans who would still follow their teams. Heck, weaker franchises might even benefit if their team suddenly got the best of the replacements. The idea that the players can not be replaced is absurd when you consider that many team completely replace almost their entire team more than once in a decade. The Habs of 4 years ago are 85% different from the Habs of today. It is still one of the most loved and followed franchises in sports.

There's nothing symmetric about 50/50 at all, it's merely a marketing gimmick targeted to low-IQ types, and thus to anyone with a brain it is unnervingly successful.
Well, at least you waited until the end of your post to randomly insult everyone who simply disagrees with you...

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:15 PM
  #836
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Not that I know of.
That's because there aren't. Not MLB, nor the NFL, nor the NBA. Those are the comparables. Not my job, your job or Joe Blow's job. The NFL, NBA and MLB. That's it. Why? All are pro sports leagues that:

have collectively bargained agreements between players and owners

have broadcast revenue

have merchandise revenue

are located in North America

have roughly the same number of teams

Any other job comparison is apples and oranges.

Quote:
You stated you owned a business. Do YOU pay your employees or are they paid by the revenue your business brings in? Are the employees responsible for those revenues, at least in part? Do YOU give 50% of your revenues to your employees? The answer is "no". Almost no business gives 50% of their revenues to either employees OR partners who do not actually share in any of the costs in the business. That is called reality, not some ideological utopian vision.
No, that's called comparing apples to oranges.


Last edited by impudent_lowlife: 10-19-2012 at 06:31 PM.
impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:24 PM
  #837
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
I will go with the players, they aren't the ones deciding it is a good idea to set up a hockey team in the desert and then bail it out for years with league money.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:36 PM
  #838
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
I will go with the players, they aren't the ones deciding it is a good idea to set up a hockey team in the desert and then bail it out for years with league money.
Or how about Katz and his attempted blackmail of Edmonton?

Or the hundreds of millions of dollars one city and state has forked over to one franchise?

Looks like many owners are all about public subsidy and private profit.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:43 PM
  #839
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Or how about Katz and his attempted blackmail of Edmonton?

Or the hundreds of millions of dollars one city and state has forked over to one franchise?

Looks like many owners are all about public subsidy and private profit.
Can you describe what Katz is up to?

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:44 PM
  #840
Ollie Williams
Registered User
 
Ollie Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Or how about Katz and his attempted blackmail of Edmonton?

Or the hundreds of millions of dollars one city and state has forked over to one franchise?

Looks like many owners are all about public subsidy and private profit.
So are the players... or did they voice their disgust towards all these decisions?

Ollie Williams is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:49 PM
  #841
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Can you describe what Katz is up to?
Katz wanted/wants a new publicly funded arena for the Oilers. He threatened to move the team to Seattle if he didn't get his way. He later apologized.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:53 PM
  #842
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Williams View Post
So are the players...
The players have no voice at all in an owners' business decisions except one: the CBA.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:00 PM
  #843
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
I will go with the players, they aren't the ones deciding it is a good idea to set up a hockey team in the desert and then bail it out for years with league money.
Really?
Bring up contraction and see what the PA says.
They will fight to keep rank and file where it is or larger

AntonCH is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:03 PM
  #844
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Katz wanted/wants a new publicly funded arena for the Oilers. He threatened to move the team to Seattle if he didn't get his way. He later apologized.
Would be tragic for Edmonton, they've sucked for so long, and now they're on the cusp of a dynasty with Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, and Yakupov.

With that said it's just talk with Katz, it's just talk.

The role of public subsidies however does belie the point that either the owners or the fans pay all the costs. Clearly, taxpayers pay a lot of the costs.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:03 PM
  #845
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Really?
Bring up contraction and see what the PA says.
They will fight to keep rank and file where it is or larger
They don't need to contract to get rid of Phoenix, there are plenty of viable markets.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:05 PM
  #846
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Lyrical,

The reason the 30 owners and 700 players is brought up is because a lot of people are fixated on the number "50/50". 50% is just another number on the real number line between 0 and 100, it is in no way superior or inferior to all the other numbers.

People think it's symmetric, but it's not:

- Some costs are subtracted before HRR is calculated, and some are not.
- Owners and players pay different tax rates -- players pay much higher tax rates.
- A lot of revenues are not included in HRR, most significant are expansion and relocation fees.
- Additionally, a lot of owners profit comes from eventually selling their teams, which is not included in HRR.
- Players typically take more risks to become NHL players than owners do to achieve their positions. Players also put their lives and health on their line and are always at risk of losing everything, whereas the same is not true of owners.
- There are 700 players and 29 owners.
- The players are less replaceable. If the 30 owners sold their product tomorrow to 30 other billionaires, no fan would be able to tell the difference. The same is not true if all the players were replaced.

There's nothing symmetric about 50/50 at all, it's merely a marketing gimmick targeted to low-IQ types, and thus to anyone with a brain it is unnervingly successful.

Yup, that sure is the voice of reason, some guy who can skate is harder to find than a billionaire willing to invest in a hockey team?

There has been a parade of shady owners in the league del biaggio, McNall et al.

I'd rather try to replace the hockey players than find a total of over 30 billion in funds, but that's just me

AntonCH is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:08 PM
  #847
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
They don't need to contract to get rid of Phoenix, there are plenty of viable markets.
Canada is running out of cities to move hockey teams to.

And as for contraction it would get rid of the 23 weakest players in the league, thus improving the product - so what's wrong with that?

AntonCH is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:18 PM
  #848
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Canada is running out of cities to move hockey teams to.

And as for contraction it would get rid of the 23 weakest players in the league, thus improving the product - so what's wrong with that?
Quebec City is an extremely viable market, but that's it for expansion/relocation in Canada.

In the USA, add Hartford (metro area 1.2 million), Seattle (metro area 3.5 million), Las Vegas (largest metro area without a team), Cleveland, Houston (6 million people), San Francisco (4.4 million and extremely rich), and maybe Baltimore. They have a lot of choices.

I'm in favor of expansion as it will grow the game's popularity. It does decrease on-ice talent in the short-term as you say, but in the long-term it increases the talent pool and makes the game more viable.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:20 PM
  #849
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Yup, that sure is the voice of reason, some guy who can skate is harder to find than a billionaire willing to invest in a hockey team?
That's all hockey players can do, skate.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:29 PM
  #850
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Quebec City is an extremely viable market, but that's it for expansion/relocation in Canada.

In the USA, add Hartford (metro area 1.2 million), Seattle (metro area 3.5 million), Las Vegas (largest metro area without a team), Cleveland, Houston (6 million people), San Francisco (4.4 million and extremely rich), and maybe Baltimore. They have a lot of choices.

I'm in favor of expansion as it will grow the game's popularity. It does decrease on-ice talent in the short-term as you say, but in the long-term it increases the talent pool and makes the game more viable.
Most of the areas/cities you've mentioned have had a team at one point or another and have lost it, including Quebec.
Nordiques, whalers, barons, golden seals,etc etc. you think they may be viable until you drop one in there.
Quebec lost their team, there now exists some form of cost certainty but PKP and others will still have to pony up for a new arena with luxury boxes.

AntonCH 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 04:54 PM.

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.