HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 01:33 PM
  #251
Shaun
Registered User
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 20,626
vCash: 500
Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
Bill Daly says he expects negotations to resume shortly and that there wasn't much truth to #NHL looking to take a two week break #NHLPA

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:37 PM
  #252
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,842
vCash: 500
Wrong thread.


Last edited by EverettMike: 11-17-2012 at 02:40 PM.
EverettMike is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:02 PM
  #253
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 16,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
Bill Daly says he expects negotations to resume shortly and that there wasn't much truth to #NHL looking to take a two week break #NHLPA
"Wasn't much truth"? Is that like being "a little bit pregnant"?

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 03:44 PM
  #254
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,433
vCash: 500
So I found an old hockey news with salaries in 2002. It wasnt exactly what I was looking for but it will do I guess.

I want to see what the effect of the CBA is on salaries in the top 50 or so {the superstars} and what it is for the middle class {for argument sakes guys 100-400 in salary}

so in 2002 I see 5 salaries 10 mill or higher... and another 16 salaries over 8 mill... so 21 guys making more then 8 mill. Compare that to only 15 players now.

they were for the record...
Bure 10 mill
Lidstrom 10.5 mill
Tkachuk 11 mill
Jagr 11 mill
Kariya 10 Mill
Leetch 9.6mill
Holik 9.6 mill
Yzerman 8.5 mill
Joseph 8 mill
Pronger 9.5 mill
Weight 8.5 mill
Guerin 8.7mill
Modano 8.5 mill
Sakic 9.8 mill
Forsberg 9.5 mill
Blake 9.3 mill
Roy 8.5 mill
Leclair 9 mill
Roenic 8 mill
Sundin 9 mill


Interesting perhaps to note that only 9 teams had any of these 21 players on the payroll.

Only 4 other teams had a player over 6 mill on the payroll. So 17 teams didnt have a single player making over 6 mill. 9 teams didnt have a single player making more then 5 mill

12 teams had payrolls under 33 million total dollars

so moving on... i see 11 guys between 6-8 mill bringing our total up tp 32 guys making over 6 mill and i see 17 more over 5 million...

so there are 49 players in 2002 making more then 5 million dollars.

Now moving on I see 22 guys making 4-5 mill which brings us to 71 guys over 4 million

I see 43 guys making 3-4 mill

so for argument sakes we will start our look at middle wage owners as anyone making under 3 mill. and say that there was 114 guys making 'star' money in 2002 at more then 3 million


Now the big number... i see 332 guys making less then 1 million dollars

so 446 guys fall into the extremes under a mill or over 3 mill and that leaves around 250 guys in the middle. between 1 mill and 3 mill

I think anyone that has looked at team payrolls lately is begining to see the picture.

This CBA has clearly put a lid on the top 50 or so payrolls in the NHL. The top 50 or so guys were making more before the CBA then they are now.

But this CBA has completely eliminated that class of 332 guys that used to make under a million and most of them now are way way way over that. In fact there was alot of guys making under 500k in 2002.

I wish I had the ambition right now to actually do a much more indepth study of the middle class salaries today but I think anyone here that cares has a good understanding that guys like Peverly/Boychuck/Kelly make more then 3 million these days

In fact lets just look at the Bruin payroll from 2002 for some interesting comparisons.

In 2002 it was at 37.3 million

Lapointe and Murray were the only 2 guys making more then 4 mill

Stumel, ODonnell, Samsonov, Rolston, Thornton, Zaumner, were the other guys over 2 mill

we had 8 guys on the team making more then 2 mill.

McInnis Gill Shields then were making more then 1 mill... so 11 guys over 1 mill and then 12 guys under a mill

effectively depending hwo you want to break things down we were paying our bottom line and last defense pair and backup goalie and 3 spares all under a million in 2002. So those guys are all the same or some have seen their salaries double or so... but this imo is ok. these guys did need the raise.

then we were paying our third line and second defense pair around 2 mill or less. and its the second line guys that really skyrocket now. from around 2 mill in 2002 to around 5 mill now.

You see it in comparisons like Stumpel making 2.8 mill in 2002 or Krecji over 5 mill now. Rolston making 2.2 mill in 2002 or Marchand making 4 mill now. ODonnell at 2.2 mill compared to Boychuck. Axelsson under a million compared to Kelly at 3 mill.

Its these middle class contracts that really skyrocketed under the last CBA

look at Thornton on his second deal getting 2.1 mill compared to Seguin making 6 now. Or Samsonov at 2.2 mill compared to Lucic now.

Guys under 25 have seen their contracts go astronomical on their second deals.

hope this info was interesting... if not then sorry

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:48 PM
  #255
sooshii
Believe in Boston
 
sooshii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philly burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 9,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
"An article appearing in today's Philadelphia Daily News is absolutely erroneous,” Snider said. “I am a solid supporter of National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman and the League in this unfortunate situation.

“Like all fans, players, owners and League officials, I am extremely hopeful that an agreement can be reached and we can eventually be playing hockey again soon. League rules prevent me and all owners from making any comments on the labor negotiations. I will continue to honor that and not make any further comments."
@DNFlyers: I continue to stand by my reporting in today's paper. End of story.

@TheFourthPeriod: The NHLPA requested Monday evening's meeting, though details are not yet set. More here: http://t.co/MnaB1FaN

Glad to hear. This moratorium b.s. was making me nutty.

sooshii is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:03 PM
  #256
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 16,516
vCash: 500
Daly, via AP:

Quote:
“We can confirm that we have tentatively agreed to get back together on Monday, either late in the afternoon or early evening. The meeting was requested by the union and it’s their agenda. We will see what they have to tell us.”

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:14 PM
  #257
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 25,836
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Daly, via AP:
Lets face it, Daly and the owners have a date somewhere and its clearly not in the next couple of weeks- maybe mid December (I have to think if they even want a season it would make sense to have a game in 2012); however, if both sides really had balls- and they don't, they would agree on one thing- A GO ****YOUSELF DATE.

They should agree that no deal by December 15th its over- nothing, cue up 'See You in September (maybe)'

its like a term paper due date with a teacher who aint messing around.

This is crap and the only good news for people that even care is 'we are one day closer to settlement.'

As for Ed Snyder- unless he got his hands on Harry Potter's sorcerers stone he aint living forever, and this is a pretty big blow to his favorite thing in life as he counts down to being 80 (I was going to say octarion but not sure if that is being 80 or a car)

The owners only will really talk whenever that date is, but I'd think its probably knowing how arrogent some of them are in February- can still get playoffs in and reap all that money

DKH is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:48 PM
  #258
Ratty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rive Gauche
Posts: 5,630
vCash: 500
It's "octogenarian", DKH. And that means old!

Ratty is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 07:53 PM
  #259
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Here's a little project for you: Go back to the beginning of the CBA (use Forbes) and re-calculate everything using the 54% players share and a cap floor of 55% (?) of the cap thru the complete term of the CBA - and you can even leave out revenue sharing - and you'll be surprised at how many teams you don't find in the red

The average difference is under $3M going from 54% to 57% however it isn't uniform. 8 teams showed an operating income loss in 2006. 12 teams show a higher profit/lower loss in 2011 than 2006 so going to 57% itself wasn't a major problem. That's right 12 teams did better at 57% than 54%.

The cap floor going up so much was a problem. If it stayed at the same % each year; somewhere around 65% (between the 55% start & 75% end of the last CBA) would be good. It would make it easier for teams to profit while only lowering competitiveness a little bit.


And to use statistics that are already known to not be 100% accurate not only clouds your judgement, but also the judgement of everyone reading it. And I know that it may be the only information readily available to you, but if we already know it not to be entirely accurate, then is it not better to leave it alone and discuss the facts that are available?

I'm not sure I get this. You say leave the information readily available to me alone but discuss the facts that are available. Those are the same thing. I'm discussing the facts (as they are available) to me as is everyone else. You make it sound like what I'm discussing isn't facts while what everyone else is discussing is. We are all using Forbes. What I am doing however is using all the facts or information I guess is a better word available to me. Not just 1 number from 1 year of operations.

I also know that along with the hockey operations are other revenue streams available to owners. Arena deals, other franchises, cable deals, franchise value, etc. Should hockey operations be profitable on their own? Sure but everyone is ignoring all other aspects. The large majority of owners are not losing money because they own a hockey team. The ones who do usually cost themselves by mismanagement, overspending, debt load, etc.


Personally, right now, I don't care whether they settle or not - only that they get it right this time, because the last time, they sure as hell didn't (both sides).
I care because I want hockey and I also care that they get it right. The agreement was there in October before games were lost and the numbers work. I will show you the numbers in another post after I get through the others that you responded to. The owners aren't getting it right now because they are costing revenue everyday and making it harder to come to an agreement.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 08:16 PM
  #260
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
First off, yes some owners draw a salary, and why wouldn't they? In most cases they are CEO's or presidents of their teams and are entitled to draw a salary. But your question is dealing in an IF for example, IF they draw a $5 million salary and show a loss of $3 million..... I can't put it any other way then : trying to draw a conclusion without all the facts. I think you are trying to paint a picture that isn't entirely true. No NHL owner (CEO) is drawing a salary that is any different than any CEO of any major North American Corporation. There is no attempt to hide expenses that the NHLPA isn't aware of. Remember, they sign off on it. Now, whether we agree on whether an owner (CEO) is entitled to draw a salary, well that's a different argument.

The only reason I brought this up is because earlier you said somewhere the savings projected in your proposal divided by 30 owners: its not equally divided 30 ways, that's my whole point. And this is the nitty gritty of the CBA negotiations. It has to work for all 30 teams not as a whole. It'll take a lot of work to figure out what each team would get and how that effects their bottom line. Something I don't have time for, but one thing is certain, it's not equal.

I was just using an average. It would be divided by 30 owners but it wouldn't be equal. The savings will actually go more to the teams that need it. You will see the numbers later. The numbers work for every team based on my understanding of how it would go.
I still don't think we are on the same wavelength. Let me try 1 more time. When people say owners are losing money - owners and team are considered the same. Separate them for a second as many teams are a corporation. A team shows a $3M loss. An owner drew a salary of $5M that was included in that loss. If the owner was a different employee than the team the loss would be $3M and the employee would show that he made $5M. Basically a business and personal tax return. The corporation shows a loss but he personally shows a gain.

In this case the team ($3M loss) and the owner ($5M profit) are the same person so the net is $2M profit. I'm not saying this happened. I was asking a question to clarify if this happened at all. I'm not trying to paint a picture that isn't true. I'll just accept that the team & owner who are the same gained or lost whatever the numbers show for hockey operations income/loss.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 08:57 PM
  #261
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
FV are just an arbitrary number, a paper number if you will. The owners gain nothing from it until they sell. The problem is, trying to find a potential owner that is willing to pay the said value. In 2005 the NHL was lined up with potential owners wanting an existing franchise or expansion. Why? Because they had cost certainty with the CBA. While the CBA did a lot of what it was intended to do, it failed on that part which is why the league is having a hard time finding owners now. So the Bruins value of $325 million is only true if I'm willing to pay that. If I bought them at $300 million, isn't that their actual value because that's all JJ could get for it? Isn't that the new value of the franchise?
Sure they are arbitrary but they are based off comparable situations. Some sell for more than Forbes number, some sell for less. The facts are that if you run your team with even half a brain and a lot of times even if you don't that you will make money. Look at the prices through history even before this CBA when owners were paying out more with no cost certainty. Look at the number of teams during this CBA that have sold. There were smart rich people willing to buy then and there are smart rich people willing to buy now and it is because they are profitable. Maybe not solely on hockey operations but overall with everything that comes with it.

Quote:
Let me use a personal example: The last house I owned before this one i purchased for $169,900. It was appraised at $209,900 when I put it on the market. For various reasons, the best offer I got was $176,900. And for various reasons sold it at that price. So is the value now $176,900 or $209,900 ? The new owners wouldn't be able to get that $209,900 if they tried to sell either so the actual value is what you get for it when it's sold. Works the same way for an NHL franchise.
I'm a loan officer - among other things so I know how this works, and in Arizona in a declining market over the last few years there were many sales below appraised value. An NHL franchise is a lot more complicated with other parts to the purchase. It isn't just a house and land. It usually involves one or more of an arena deal, a cable deal, a minor league franchise, a stadium, etc.

Quote:
And as for the owners actual out of pocket expense to purchase a team: These owners don't usually come in and pay out of pocket. Its stupid to do so. They finance it to protect their own personal property. The team has to be self sustaining, without constantly putting in personal wealth. Obviously as fans we want them to. But it's not how business works.

Again with a personal example: Several years ago I purchased 3 businesses with total annual sales of $10 million. Under the advice of lawyers and accountants, I formed two legal corporations (separate entities under the law from myself). My own personal investment was $8000.00 and under the law, if those business failed, none of my personal cash, property, my wife, son, parents - you name it, couldn't have legal action brought up against them in a civil suit. NHL owners operate the same way - the team has to sustain itself without personal wealth/property being effected.

Could Rogers/Bell Media have afforded to pay $1.1 Billion in cash to buy MLSE and the Leafs? Darn right they could have. 10 times. Did they? No, because if the disastrous happened, they'd be out their personal wealth. Sometimes they'll pay a little more interest (actually - all the time ) in order to protect themselves, but it still boils down to one thing, MLSE has to make enough money to cover all the expenses.
I don't care if they purchase with cash or debt. I want them to do what makes them money. Did you purchase with more debt than the business could sustain? That is what these owners are doing. The NFL has an average debt of about 19% of franchise value. The NHL is at about 48%. NJ is at 144%, Dallas at 126%. Rogers/Bell & Toronto can afford that debt and support it. NJ can't. If you put NJ through BK and wiped out the debt, they are worth a heck of a lot more. They would still generate the same revenue. They actually showed a large operating profit over the life of the CBA. What the heck was the owner doing with the money? What happened that has put them in so much trouble. It isn't a 3% increase in salary percentage.

And I've seen a main argument from people that the owners take all the financial risk. Based on the debt value they don't. The banks are taking the risk. And banks have access to the financials. They wouldn't be lending the money if these businesses weren't profitable. Is every one going to pay off? Probably not, but the majority do. When they don't it is the owner's fault. Usually for mismanaging the NHL team and from operations outside of hockey that makes them not be able to afford the team. (See Hicks & Dallas). Also hugely profitable until recently as he wracked up the debt.

Quote:
And finally, speaking of endorsements, some players make a ton of money because the NHL exists. Would Crosby get a Gatorade endorsement if he was playing in the KHL instead of the NHL ? probably, but nowhere near the value it is now because the NHL gives him the exposure he couldn't get any place else.

Okay, so Crosby is a big name, but not exclusive to him. See the thread with the Lucic commercial? Would Lucic be a part of that commercial if not for the NHL? How about Shawn Thornton? The list goes on and on. The NHL not only allows them to make money from playing hockey, but allows them to make money from other ventures, not because they play hockey, but because they play NHL hockey - NHL hockey made possible by NHL owners.
Players do make a lot and have other income because the NHL exists. But what do the owners make on hockey without the NHL players? What would revenue be? There are actually double the billionaires in the world than players I want to watch play NHL hockey. Swap out 30 owners while keeping the NHL players and what happens? Swap out the players and keep the same 30 owners and what happens? I know which league I want to watch and it isn't the same owners.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:04 PM
  #262
mikelvl
Registered User
 
mikelvl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 487
So long as Jeremy Jacobs is in a position of power, this lockout may never end. Get rid of him!

mikelvl is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:34 PM
  #263
chizzler
Registered User
 
chizzler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 413
Country: Portugal
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
When the last lock out was ongoing, I couldn't wait for it to end. I needed hockey ASAP. With the amount of lockouts now at 4 in the last few years, I could care less when they come back. A shortened season to me leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's not really a season to me. They won't be seeing me at the games anytime soon. I'm tired of this. Everytime the collective agreement is over it's lockout time. This time around, I'm not that bothered by it. They're harming the sport and the league.

chizzler is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:52 PM
  #264
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Here are the numbers to show that the players 50/50 offer will work for every team. I didn't include the TV contract or the Make Whole because they basically wipe each other out. I haven't included growth which will just add to the owners profits. Salary % will not increase like last CBA so as revenues increase it will still work.

*Note on revenue sharing. I don't know how the owners will split it. I took from the top 10 teams to make every team profit at least $2.5M. 13 teams needed it to get there. 7 teams don't give or get in this scenario - They make whatever they make based on 50/50. I gave the most to the teams that needed it. I only used $51M in revenue sharing (above current use) so there is actually more available that I didn't use. It looks like they will agree to around $70 to $80M more.

Columns:
Team
2006 - Profit or Loss - this was at 54%. Only 8 teams show operating income loss
2011 - Profit or Loss - this was at 57%. 12 teams actually did better at 57%.
Salary - What each team paid per capgeek.com last year
50/50 Savings - What each team will save cutting last years salary from 57% to 50%
Net - 2011 Profit & Loss + 50/50 Savings - Down to only 6 teams losing money even before any more revenue sharing.
Rev sharing - * see note above. Black is what they are getting. Red is what they are giving up.
New Profit - Also see above for explanation. Every team makes at least $2.5M
Benefit - This is the total benefit of 50/50 plus or minus revenue sharing. Every team makes more than last CBA. Every team makes profits
Debt Value% - Shows debt of each team. Teams will be able to pay down on this making them more profitable.
Above Floor - Shows how far teams spent above the floor. Another way teams can be more profitable. Spend wisely, within budget.

TEAM20062011Salary50/50SavingsNetRevSharingNewProfitBenefitDebt/Value(%)AboveFloor
Coyotes($6.0)($24.4)$55.0$7.15($17.3)$19.8$2.5$26.926%$6.7
BlueJackets($4.0)($13.7)$61.3$7.97($5.7)$8.2$2.5$16.266%$13.0
Islanders($9.2)($8.1)$49.1$6.38($1.7)$4.2$2.5$10.667%$0.8
Predators($1.1)($7.5)$52.1$6.77($0.7)$3.2$2.5$10.052%$3.8
Ducks($0.2)($8.4)$59.3$7.71($0.7)$3.2$2.5$10.935%$11.0
Lightning$5.0($8.5)$60.9$7.92($0.6)$3.1$2.5$11.026%$12.6
Sharks$1.8($7.8)$61.4$7.98$0.2$2.3$2.5$10.321%$13.1
Panthers($1.9)($7.0)$55.5$7.22$0.2$2.3$2.5$9.559%$7.2
Capitals$4.6($7.5)$66.4$8.63$1.1$1.4$2.5$10.058%$18.1
Wild$4.7($5.9)$55.8$7.25$1.4$1.1$2.5$8.453%$7.5
Jets($5.4)($5.2)$51.7$6.72$1.5$1.0$2.5$7.761%$3.4
Devils($6.7)($6.1)$61.7$8.02$1.9$0.6$2.5$8.6144%$13.4
Hurricanes$0.5($4.4)$50.5$6.57$2.2$0.3$2.5$6.977%$2.2
Sabres$4.6($5.6)$65.3$8.49$2.9$0.0$2.9$8.546%$17.0
Blues$1.0($2.7)$54.9$7.14$4.4$0.0$4.4$7.181%$6.6
Stars$10.0($1.1)$49.8$6.47$5.4$0.0$5.4$6.5126%$1.5
Kings$7.1($2.0)$63.7$8.28$6.3$0.0$6.3$8.366%$15.4
Penguins$4.8($0.2)$64.2$8.35$8.1$0.0$8.1$8.338%$15.9
Flames$2.3$1.1$64.2$8.35$9.4$0.0$9.4$8.315%$15.9
Senators$4.2$2.8$51.6$6.71$9.5$0.0$9.5$6.765%$3.3
Bruins$4.8$2.7$62.2$8.09$10.8($1.2)$9.6$6.935%$13.9
Flyers$0.9$3.2$66.9$8.70$11.9($2.3)$9.6$6.422%$18.6
Avalanche$5.9$6.1$49.4$6.42$12.5($2.8)$9.7$3.612%$1.1
Blackhawks$3.1$8.7$60.2$7.83$16.5($4.4)$12.1$3.40%$11.9
RedWings$5.8$16.3$59.3$7.71$24.0($5.4)$18.6$2.30%$11.0
Oilers$10.7$17.3$60.5$7.87$25.2($5.6)$19.6$2.347%$12.2
Canucks$1.1$23.5$64.9$8.44$31.9($6.1)$25.8$2.337%$16.6
Rangers$17.7$41.4$61.9$8.05$49.4($7.4)$42.0$0.60%$13.6
Canadiens$17.5$47.7$62.2$8.09$55.8($7.5)$48.3$0.665%$13.9
MapleLeafs$41.5$81.8$63.5$8.26$90.1($8.0)$82.1$0.325%$15.2

With every team making money all franchise values will go up even more than they do now. I also didn't take into account any new local and Canadian TV deals, other CBA contracting issues and being able to trade salary that will also help the owners.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 10:04 PM
  #265
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
So long as Jeremy Jacobs is in a position of power, this lockout may never end. Get rid of him!
Jacobs can't hold it up by himself. I don't know if he is a hardliner or not. If I had to guess, I think he wants the 5% contract variance and term limit as much or more than the money. He will make more in the new CBA whatever the terms end up being.

The other stuff will help keep the team competitive which also helps his profits. I think it is obvious Jacobs and Chia have been against the huge long term contracts as they haven't been giving them out.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 12:52 AM
  #266
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Sure they are arbitrary but they are based off comparable situations. Some sell for more than Forbes number, some sell for less. The facts are that if you run your team with even half a brain and a lot of times even if you don't that you will make money. Look at the prices through history even before this CBA when owners were paying out more with no cost certainty. Look at the number of teams during this CBA that have sold. There were smart rich people willing to buy then and there are smart rich people willing to buy now and it is because they are profitable. Maybe not solely on hockey operations but overall with everything that comes with it.



I'm a loan officer - among other things so I know how this works, and in Arizona in a declining market over the last few years there were many sales below appraised value. An NHL franchise is a lot more complicated with other parts to the purchase. It isn't just a house and land. It usually involves one or more of an arena deal, a cable deal, a minor league franchise, a stadium, etc.



I don't care if they purchase with cash or debt. I want them to do what makes them money. Did you purchase with more debt than the business could sustain? That is what these owners are doing. The NFL has an average debt of about 19% of franchise value. The NHL is at about 48%. NJ is at 144%, Dallas at 126%. Rogers/Bell & Toronto can afford that debt and support it. NJ can't. If you put NJ through BK and wiped out the debt, they are worth a heck of a lot more. They would still generate the same revenue. They actually showed a large operating profit over the life of the CBA. What the heck was the owner doing with the money? What happened that has put them in so much trouble. It isn't a 3% increase in salary percentage.

And I've seen a main argument from people that the owners take all the financial risk. Based on the debt value they don't. The banks are taking the risk. And banks have access to the financials. They wouldn't be lending the money if these businesses weren't profitable. Is every one going to pay off? Probably not, but the majority do. When they don't it is the owner's fault. Usually for mismanaging the NHL team and from operations outside of hockey that makes them not be able to afford the team. (See Hicks & Dallas). Also hugely profitable until recently as he wracked up the debt.



Players do make a lot and have other income because the NHL exists. But what do the owners make on hockey without the NHL players? What would revenue be? There are actually double the billionaires in the world than players I want to watch play NHL hockey. Swap out 30 owners while keeping the NHL players and what happens? Swap out the players and keep the same 30 owners and what happens? I know which league I want to watch and it isn't the same owners.
i think in all your aguments though is lost a certain reality. you are trying to hold the owners to your idea of logic... or maybe the common man's idea of logic. but these are billionare's on huge ego trips

now we look at sports... sports is an entertainment. it doesnt solve world hunger or fix pollution or anything else except provide entertaiment.

the type of entertainment it provides... is glory. it is akin to the collusium fights of yesteryear. It allows us fans to live vicariously through the efforts of the on ice gladiators.

without a WINNING team there is very little entertainment... very little GLORY for the owner either.

There are very very very very very few owners that buy a team expecting to walk away rich from their investments. Those that do... deserve the hell they get. But most owners expect the costs to be 'affordable.'

These are guys with more money then they know what to do with that buy the sports teams. Owning a chain of tire stores doesnt give them glory. So they want a chance to be able to bid on the star players... without going bankrupt.

Until you can grasp what motivates a professional sports owner, you wont be able to create a 'fix' to this lockout that has any chance of working.

Now you do repersent the players side well.. ill give you that. You keep pointing out that with proper revenue sharing there is enough money to trickle it out and for the most part make most the teams managable...

but you fail to understand the owners motives in owning teams when you suggest this fix.

At the end of the day... i argue... that the owners ego will ensure the players get paid a ton anyhow. The last CBA might have been managable if the owners had allowed it to work. But this goes against their human nature. We saw in practice what will happen under any system.

there was a time... 40 years ago... when there was 6 teams and like 3 tv stations... where our culture was very primative... and big business could exploit the workers... where things were different. But this is 2012 now. If the owners ever did actually being to exploit the players, then obviously a competitive league would spring up. If being an owner ever actually did become proftiable... then obviously a competitive league would spring up. We know this to be true.

Its not true now though... the players are being overpaid so much that theres no chance in hell for any rival league to compete. Even the KHL cant keep any of the players the NHL wants. Every player on the face of the earth able to play in the NHL... wants to play in the NHL {except Soderberg}

there is a reason for this... the players have it WAY WAY WAY better here then they do anywhere else.

Now your side of the argument will say that the players are the product... and they are partners... and thus its reasonable for them to have the rights to hijack the NHL for all their demands. But you keep denying that a very large part of the money they are taking is from the taxpayers... and another very large amount is coming form owners loses {not revenues but loses}

if a taxpayer willingly is willing to support the team... and is guaranteed to get what we pay for... then thats one thing. if owners are willingly willing to lose money... thats another thing...

but you are on the side of legislating into a 10 year binding contract... a formula that will need taxpayer dollers to float it... and will guarantee that many teams will continue to lose money unless they spend to the cap floor and somehow still manage to make the playoffs anyhow.

there is another solution to fixing this problem. The owners have around 200 million profit to split between them all to fix the problem but you want the fix to occur with this 200 million leaving none of them much of a profit at all...

the players though are taking home around 1.8 billion. a 33% reduction in their pay would free up 600 million to fix all issues. All teams would make very very healthy profits. And the players would still have 1.2 billion to split between there 700-800 members. They still average over 1.5 mill a year.

Now i tossed out a number way way way larger then the owners are asking for... but I did it for a reason. Just to make a bold point. The players would still average over 1.5 mill a year and the owners would also make alot of money... and the taxpayers could keep our money for things like schools and roads and hospitals instead of a second pool in some players summer cottage.

this is where your argument falls apart for me. I know you treat the numbers you have as gospel. Someone was accusing me of treating my numbers as gospel too. I sure dont. I realize i dont get to see any financial reports.

most teams are owned privately and never release their numbers for the public. I guess the players are allowed to see the records, but they have no legal right to make the info public on private teams... so how does forbes get its info?

Forbes is guessing or using illegal information. I guess theyd be sued if they used illegle info, so Im betting they guess.

When I compare actual sales figures to forbes estimates... the forbes estimates are never very close... but then again thats what happens with buyer/seller deals of this sort anyhow.

there so much ego involved... that the prices often dont make sense economically anyhow. If an owner has a reasonable chance not to go bankrupt... there always seems to be one willing to step in and be the hero. In Edmonton here... Katz and before him the alliance all wanted to step up and be heros. They didnt expect to make a ton of money. They just wanted a chance to be the big man in a small town here. Pockington was a charleton before them... but he too owned the team for ego. The game got too expensive for him so he started selling off the players... but before that he handed out record contracts to the guys cause he loved the ego of having the best team on the planet.

In Toronto when the Bluejays were winning championships... ownership stepped up and had a payroll rivaling the yankees... cause it loved the ego of having a winning team. Owners will spend money if they have a chance to get an ego rush from it.

You might be able to point out 5-10 owners that might seem to put profit ahead of team... the guy in florida seems to... but i can make you 30-40 owners who clearly have no freaking clue how to make money with their teams and just authorize one insane thing after another to stroke their egos instead.

owners arent greedy... they are ego driven. In order to get a CBA that works, you need to satisfy their egos. You have to give them a chance to not go bankrupt while still feeling like they are in the big leagues. Or you have to at the very least guarantee a profit for them cause these are stupid men. they wont lose money AND have no chance at ego rush too.

If... there was any competition for the players to use for leverage... any chance of some... then the owners might have to bow down to your reasonable suggestions for a fix. But there isnt any. The owners will eventually get the deal they want. There is no alternative. The owners are rich enough to wait for it. The deal will be good enough to offset any loses incurred in the meantime. They are willing to go this route if needed.

Trying to force a deal on them that they have zero interest in... just isnt very helpful to the process in the meantime. The players... might be able to lose a season? I guess... I mean I dont know... but its their choice and maybe thats what is going to happen? It sucks cause alot of us taxpayers are paying for their nice arenas that arent being used. We are supporting the casinos and the lotteries. We arent guaranteed anything for our troubles though and dont even get a voice at the table...

but the players have a voice and they are using it right now to refuse to take the contract offered. If the contract offered... actually HURT them then maybe i could understand. But the contract offered is MILES AND MILES AND MILES BETTER then anything else on the planet.

I mean the players are really only using the owners to negotiate against the other owners... thats the ONLY LEVERAGE they have... and one every 6-10 years when a new CBA comes up, the owners negotiate as a group instead of against one another.

Once this deal is signed... the players are in control again and will again use owner against owners... but it wont happen until the deal gets signed.

A loss in total revenues might not hurt the owners 1 single penny. IF costs go down more then revenues then a lockout might not cost the owners 1 single penny. BUT players get paid a % of revenues. A reduction in revenues DIRECTLY hurts the players.

I sure hope they feel this fight is worth it. The owners obviously do. I dont see what the players have to gain COMPARED to what they are GUARANTEED to lose. So i dont personally see why this fight is worth it to the players.

at the very least... offer proposals that have some chance of being considered by the owners for more then 10 mins. Back off this revenue sharing idea that the owners have clearly rejected now. Alot of owners probably wouldnt care about ufa age... about length of contracts... about variance... because they were the ego maniacs doing all that crap anyhow.

if the players give in on the raw dollars to make small market teams viable, then the owners probably have room to negotiate on the other issues.

So make a proposal that has some chance of working... and you still get paid way more then the KHL or swiss league or sweden or germany...

if im wrong... then go start your own league. I dont care. id watch it. I just want my hockey. Whatever league is the best league locally... ill watch. But the evidence ultimately proves itself out whether being a pro league owner is a lucrative experience or not for most owners.

Most owners sell.. citing huge loses... after going to the local goverments for handouts... citing huge loses... then dont buy a second franchise. Unless they win a championship. Winning championships might change things a bit for some. Owners in very large/successful markets are the obvious exception to what im saying. So around 33% of owners are owners of very large/successful markets.

People that try to start rival sport leagues in the last 30 years to get rich... all go broke instead. All teh rival sport leagues have failed. A few Soccor leagues have failed. A couple hockey leagues have failed. A couple football leagues have failed. Even the NBA was in trouble. The NHL had to contract a couple teams... and many more teams had to relocate.

You keep saying its such a licence to print money if a team is run well.. but the evidence is what happens to so many teams... and whats still happening to the bottom 10 or so teams even now under this past cba too.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 06:48 AM
  #267
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
i think in all your aguments though is lost a certain reality. you are trying to hold the owners to your idea of logic... or maybe the common man's idea of logic. but these are billionare's on huge ego trips

now we look at sports... sports is an entertainment. it doesnt solve world hunger or fix pollution or anything else except provide entertaiment.

the type of entertainment it provides... is glory. it is akin to the collusium fights of yesteryear. It allows us fans to live vicariously through the efforts of the on ice gladiators.

without a WINNING team there is very little entertainment... very little GLORY for the owner either.

There are very very very very very few owners that buy a team expecting to walk away rich from their investments. Those that do... deserve the hell they get. But most owners expect the costs to be 'affordable.'

These are guys with more money then they know what to do with that buy the sports teams. Owning a chain of tire stores doesnt give them glory. So they want a chance to be able to bid on the star players... without going bankrupt.

Until you can grasp what motivates a professional sports owner, you wont be able to create a 'fix' to this lockout that has any chance of working.

Now you do repersent the players side well.. ill give you that. You keep pointing out that with proper revenue sharing there is enough money to trickle it out and for the most part make most the teams managable...

but you fail to understand the owners motives in owning teams when you suggest this fix.

At the end of the day... i argue... that the owners ego will ensure the players get paid a ton anyhow. The last CBA might have been managable if the owners had allowed it to work. But this goes against their human nature. We saw in practice what will happen under any system.

there was a time... 40 years ago... when there was 6 teams and like 3 tv stations... where our culture was very primative... and big business could exploit the workers... where things were different. But this is 2012 now. If the owners ever did actually being to exploit the players, then obviously a competitive league would spring up. If being an owner ever actually did become proftiable... then obviously a competitive league would spring up. We know this to be true.

Its not true now though... the players are being overpaid so much that theres no chance in hell for any rival league to compete. Even the KHL cant keep any of the players the NHL wants. Every player on the face of the earth able to play in the NHL... wants to play in the NHL {except Soderberg}

there is a reason for this... the players have it WAY WAY WAY better here then they do anywhere else.

Now your side of the argument will say that the players are the product... and they are partners... and thus its reasonable for them to have the rights to hijack the NHL for all their demands. But you keep denying that a very large part of the money they are taking is from the taxpayers... and another very large amount is coming form owners loses {not revenues but loses}

if a taxpayer willingly is willing to support the team... and is guaranteed to get what we pay for... then thats one thing. if owners are willingly willing to lose money... thats another thing...

but you are on the side of legislating into a 10 year binding contract... a formula that will need taxpayer dollers to float it... and will guarantee that many teams will continue to lose money unless they spend to the cap floor and somehow still manage to make the playoffs anyhow.

there is another solution to fixing this problem. The owners have around 200 million profit to split between them all to fix the problem but you want the fix to occur with this 200 million leaving none of them much of a profit at all...

the players though are taking home around 1.8 billion. a 33% reduction in their pay would free up 600 million to fix all issues. All teams would make very very healthy profits. And the players would still have 1.2 billion to split between there 700-800 members. They still average over 1.5 mill a year.

Now i tossed out a number way way way larger then the owners are asking for... but I did it for a reason. Just to make a bold point. The players would still average over 1.5 mill a year and the owners would also make alot of money... and the taxpayers could keep our money for things like schools and roads and hospitals instead of a second pool in some players summer cottage.

this is where your argument falls apart for me. I know you treat the numbers you have as gospel. Someone was accusing me of treating my numbers as gospel too. I sure dont. I realize i dont get to see any financial reports.

most teams are owned privately and never release their numbers for the public. I guess the players are allowed to see the records, but they have no legal right to make the info public on private teams... so how does forbes get its info?

Forbes is guessing or using illegal information. I guess theyd be sued if they used illegle info, so Im betting they guess.

When I compare actual sales figures to forbes estimates... the forbes estimates are never very close... but then again thats what happens with buyer/seller deals of this sort anyhow.

there so much ego involved... that the prices often dont make sense economically anyhow. If an owner has a reasonable chance not to go bankrupt... there always seems to be one willing to step in and be the hero. In Edmonton here... Katz and before him the alliance all wanted to step up and be heros. They didnt expect to make a ton of money. They just wanted a chance to be the big man in a small town here. Pockington was a charleton before them... but he too owned the team for ego. The game got too expensive for him so he started selling off the players... but before that he handed out record contracts to the guys cause he loved the ego of having the best team on the planet.

In Toronto when the Bluejays were winning championships... ownership stepped up and had a payroll rivaling the yankees... cause it loved the ego of having a winning team. Owners will spend money if they have a chance to get an ego rush from it.

You might be able to point out 5-10 owners that might seem to put profit ahead of team... the guy in florida seems to... but i can make you 30-40 owners who clearly have no freaking clue how to make money with their teams and just authorize one insane thing after another to stroke their egos instead.

owners arent greedy... they are ego driven. In order to get a CBA that works, you need to satisfy their egos. You have to give them a chance to not go bankrupt while still feeling like they are in the big leagues. Or you have to at the very least guarantee a profit for them cause these are stupid men. they wont lose money AND have no chance at ego rush too.

If... there was any competition for the players to use for leverage... any chance of some... then the owners might have to bow down to your reasonable suggestions for a fix. But there isnt any. The owners will eventually get the deal they want. There is no alternative. The owners are rich enough to wait for it. The deal will be good enough to offset any loses incurred in the meantime. They are willing to go this route if needed.

Trying to force a deal on them that they have zero interest in... just isnt very helpful to the process in the meantime. The players... might be able to lose a season? I guess... I mean I dont know... but its their choice and maybe thats what is going to happen? It sucks cause alot of us taxpayers are paying for their nice arenas that arent being used. We are supporting the casinos and the lotteries. We arent guaranteed anything for our troubles though and dont even get a voice at the table...

but the players have a voice and they are using it right now to refuse to take the contract offered. If the contract offered... actually HURT them then maybe i could understand. But the contract offered is MILES AND MILES AND MILES BETTER then anything else on the planet.

I mean the players are really only using the owners to negotiate against the other owners... thats the ONLY LEVERAGE they have... and one every 6-10 years when a new CBA comes up, the owners negotiate as a group instead of against one another.

Once this deal is signed... the players are in control again and will again use owner against owners... but it wont happen until the deal gets signed.

A loss in total revenues might not hurt the owners 1 single penny. IF costs go down more then revenues then a lockout might not cost the owners 1 single penny. BUT players get paid a % of revenues. A reduction in revenues DIRECTLY hurts the players.

I sure hope they feel this fight is worth it. The owners obviously do. I dont see what the players have to gain COMPARED to what they are GUARANTEED to lose. So i dont personally see why this fight is worth it to the players.

at the very least... offer proposals that have some chance of being considered by the owners for more then 10 mins. Back off this revenue sharing idea that the owners have clearly rejected now. Alot of owners probably wouldnt care about ufa age... about length of contracts... about variance... because they were the ego maniacs doing all that crap anyhow.

if the players give in on the raw dollars to make small market teams viable, then the owners probably have room to negotiate on the other issues.

So make a proposal that has some chance of working... and you still get paid way more then the KHL or swiss league or sweden or germany...

if im wrong... then go start your own league. I dont care. id watch it. I just want my hockey. Whatever league is the best league locally... ill watch. But the evidence ultimately proves itself out whether being a pro league owner is a lucrative experience or not for most owners.

Most owners sell.. citing huge loses... after going to the local goverments for handouts... citing huge loses... then dont buy a second franchise. Unless they win a championship. Winning championships might change things a bit for some. Owners in very large/successful markets are the obvious exception to what im saying. So around 33% of owners are owners of very large/successful markets.

People that try to start rival sport leagues in the last 30 years to get rich... all go broke instead. All teh rival sport leagues have failed. A few Soccor leagues have failed. A couple hockey leagues have failed. A couple football leagues have failed. Even the NBA was in trouble. The NHL had to contract a couple teams... and many more teams had to relocate.

You keep saying its such a licence to print money if a team is run well.. but the evidence is what happens to so many teams... and whats still happening to the bottom 10 or so teams even now under this past cba too.
Great post, one disagreement though, owner`s are "ego driven"???? Prove your point please

ODAAT is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:37 AM
  #268
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,735
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...179909441.html

Quote:
FP: Was the aggressive nature of your first offer to the players a mistake?

GB: I think the view some have of our first offer is fairly naive as it relates to collective bargaining. A sophisticated negotiator would have looked at it and said, 'Obviously they want a 50-50 split.' If we're at 57 and they propose 43, they must be telegraphing where they want to end. If your intention was to use it in an inflammatory way, you could do that. If your intention was to make a deal, you could pretty much chart out what the course should be.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:54 AM
  #269
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 500
*sigh*, what an idiot. He's not incorrect in his logic per se, but treating the opposing party with a measure of respect can go a long way. There's a reason why GM's in the NHL don't get very far by offering a guy worth 4 million a 1 million dollar deal.

RussellmaniaKW is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:47 AM
  #270
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 12,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
Great interview.

Everything there makes sense except for his explicit statements about it. Say the NHLPA came in with a counter proposal to up their salary to 64%- would a "sophisticated negotiator" like himself figure they'd chart out a deal that would end up back at 57%?

Real "sophisticated negotiators" understand that defining the narrative is 90% of negotiating. By letting the storyline become "greedy owners started with an inflamatory proposal and repeatedly walk away from the table", he is allowing himself to get played by Fehr and the NHLPA.

JMiller is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 12:32 PM
  #271
ap3lovr
Registered User
 
ap3lovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moncton
Posts: 3,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Great interview.

Everything there makes sense except for his explicit statements about it. Say the NHLPA came in with a counter proposal to up their salary to 64%- would a "sophisticated negotiator" like himself figure they'd chart out a deal that would end up back at 57%?

Real "sophisticated negotiators" understand that defining the narrative is 90% of negotiating. By letting the storyline become "greedy owners started with an inflamatory proposal and repeatedly walk away from the table", he is allowing himself to get played by Fehr and the NHLPA.
The problem with this "narrative" is that it assumes the fans matter in this. We don't matter 1 bit. The NHL doesn't care, and the NHLPA doesn't care. If both sides actually cared about their customers. We would be watching hockey right now. Not having meetings to schedule more meetings.

It doesn't matter what side of the fence any of us are on. Neither side actually cares about the fans. It would be nice to see teams with empty arenas once they open. It would be nice to see TV ratings so low that NBC uses their out clause. The only way either side is going to get the hint that the fans matter is by losing them. Otherwise we will see ourselves back here in another 5-10 years.

ap3lovr is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:00 PM
  #272
BergyMeister
Overpaid Grinder
 
BergyMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vermont
Country: United States
Posts: 6,613
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3lovr View Post
The problem with this "narrative" is that it assumes the fans matter in this. We don't matter 1 bit. The NHL doesn't care, and the NHLPA doesn't care. If both sides actually cared about their customers. We would be watching hockey right now. Not having meetings to schedule more meetings.

It doesn't matter what side of the fence any of us are on. Neither side actually cares about the fans. It would be nice to see teams with empty arenas once they open. It would be nice to see TV ratings so low that NBC uses their out clause. The only way either side is going to get the hint that the fans matter is by losing them. Otherwise we will see ourselves back here in another 5-10 years.

Well said ap3lovr. I for one don't think either side thinks the fans are anything but Lemmings with wallets, just waiting to be led into the nearest NHL arena when they are done with thier **** measuring contest. I'm sure for many fans that’s going to be the case but in regards to some of us recently converted they are making a huge error in judgment.

BergyMeister is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:27 PM
  #273
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3lovr View Post
The problem with this "narrative" is that it assumes the fans matter in this. We don't matter 1 bit. The NHL doesn't care, and the NHLPA doesn't care. If both sides actually cared about their customers. We would be watching hockey right now. Not having meetings to schedule more meetings.

It doesn't matter what side of the fence any of us are on. Neither side actually cares about the fans. It would be nice to see teams with empty arenas once they open. It would be nice to see TV ratings so low that NBC uses their out clause. The only way either side is going to get the hint that the fans matter is by losing them. Otherwise we will see ourselves back here in another 5-10 years.
Right on. It would be fabulous to watch the sport we all love plunge back into total insignifigance, where the only "national" coverage it can get is on the OLN channel. It would be great if being a hockey fan in this town again meant being a punch line. Let's go back to THOSE days.

How anyone that is a fan of the NHL can be rooting for the league to fail in order to prove a point is beyond me.

This isn't necesarily a jab at the quoted poster, but Jesus is this place becoming insufferable. Was it like this during the last lockout, too?

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:33 PM
  #274
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 500
unfortunately there are plenty of people on this board alone who have already said that they won't stop watching/spending money on the NHL so in a sense both sides are right about us being lemmings.

RussellmaniaKW is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:34 PM
  #275
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
Right on. It would be fabulous to watch the sport we all love plunge back into total insignifigance, where the only "national" coverage it can get is on the OLN channel. It would be great if being a hockey fan in this town again meant being a punch line. Let's go back to THOSE days.

How anyone that is a fan of the NHL can be rooting for the league to fail in order to prove a point is beyond me.

This isn't necesarily a jab at the quoted poster, but Jesus is this place becoming insufferable. Was it like this during the last lockout, too?
yes because maintaining the status quo and lining these guys' pockets so they can do it all over again in 6 years is a much better solution.

The owners and players need a wakeup call and the only way they'll get it is if the fans stop paying.

RussellmaniaKW 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 06:01 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.