Personally I only pay attention to one because one number is a projection and one is not. 1.75% increases on top of 1.88 billion is the actual, a 5% annual increase in revenue is not. The fact that the league is being nearly completely supported by only a couple of Canadian teams scares me more then just a little. You look at all other major sports and you quickly see they have significantly more individual teams turning a profit. NFL and MLB have 25+ teams turning profits each year, most of them significant profits. The NBA has less teams turning a profit (10-15 teams lose money each year) but still (A) have more teams turning a profit then the NHL and (B) have more of the teams who turn a profit make real money. And still, look at the **** show that was the NBA lockout last season and the concessions players had to make there.
I honestly could care less who comes out on top, the owners or the players. Millionaires and Billionaires fighting over our money doesn't lend itself to earning my loyalty one way or the other. In order for the NHL to succeed and hopefully grow however, it needs to be profitable (other words the owners need to make money). In order for it to be as exciting as possible in my mind it needs to be competitive, and in order to be competitive there needs to be parity. All teams need to be able to realistically spend to the cap without reporting a loss. I support the owners because it just so happens that them looking out for their own interests will as a by product achieve each of these things. The NHLPA looking out for their own interests won't. They don't care if Nashville can turn a profit. They don't care if ticket prices for the fans need to increase to support their salaries. They want to maximize their earning ability (as most people do) and in doing so, at least imo, run the risk of hurting the entire league. I don't begrudge them for it, but I don't agree with it at all either.
I think both sides have recognized that something must be done in order to make the NHL a profitable entity. I certainly have come to that conclusion and I've taken directly from the players' share in every proposal I've made.
You can't knock on one side for negotiating with pure numbers and not the other though. And I don't see you giving much credit to the players' side for making concessions and negotiating on the NHL's terms. I think it's admirable and if I was in control of things (with this system of problem-solving) I'd be a bigger dick than Don Fehr.
Also, when your salary is tied to the amount of money the league makes, it's in your best interest to do what you can to make the league as much money as possible. So there IS a mutual benefit there.
94-95 was fine and no more damning to integrity then the NHL's refusal to move from 6 team lead thru most of 60's
Playoffs are what matters ,, Any team who goes thru the gauntlet that is NHL playoffs and raises the cup is deserving of respect
Agreed. It becomes a bit of a joke if less than half the games are played but any season with a full playoffs is preferable to none and more helpful to all the people and companies that depend on the NHL for a living.
And at this point a 70 game season should still be on the table. If they could get 82 with a Nov 2nd start date, they should still be able to get at least 70 if an agreement was reached soon.
Agreed. It becomes a bit of a joke if less than half the games are played but any season with a full playoffs is preferable to none and more helpful to all the people and companies that depend on the NHL for a living.
And at this point a 70 game season should still be on the table. If they could get 82 with a Nov 2nd start date, they should still be able to get at least 70 if an agreement was reached soon.
They will have to cancel at least half of Decembers games soon though
Cause even if lets say some miracle happened and they got a deal done they would still need it voted on (All the players would have to be available to vote) and then at least a week of camp
There is dissension among some owners. Obviously it's not public so can only make the public one's available.
This from one NHL player:
Quote:
"I am disgusted. We have to push Fehr to the wall to get the deal. Time is against us. We lost 1/4 season, it is 425M $. Who will give it back to us? Mr. Fehr? There should be voting between player. Four questions - YES or NO - then count it. If half of players say lets play, then they should sign new CBA. If there is no season he should leave and we will find someone new. Time is our enemy."
Im not sure why 40 game season isnt better than no season. but 50 better than 40 and 64 better than 50. id take a 24 before a 0 though. still hoping this thing gets settled and in such a way everyone can live with it for at least a decade
I think both sides have recognized that something must be done in order to make the NHL a profitable entity. I certainly have come to that conclusion and I've taken directly from the players' share in every proposal I've made.
You can't knock on one side for negotiating with pure numbers and not the other though. And I don't see you giving much credit to the players' side for making concessions and negotiating on the NHL's terms. I think it's admirable and if I was in control of things (with this system of problem-solving) I'd be a bigger dick than Don Fehr.
Also, when your salary is tied to the amount of money the league makes, it's in your best interest to do what you can to make the league as much money as possible. So there IS a mutual benefit there.
I haven't exactly been giving credit to either side for any of the concessions either have made, both have. And if you become Fehr, I get to become Bettman, although I'm obviously taller, more handsome and more personable then he is . And I'd win, but there would be no hockey for quite some time, because I would have taken even more of a hard line stance right from the get go and got this thing fixed permanently so we don't lose a year of hockey twice a decade and teams could make some money. Players would definitely rebel until they realized being an NHL player, and making millions of dollars a year ain't so bad (I wouldn't change minimum salaries but I'd damn sure drop maximum salaries). Owners would likely be pissed as well, because I'd be doing some things to ensure teams can't take advantage of fan bases simply because they're committed to the sport. Pretty sure I'd piss everyone off.
The Players need the NHL because without it they play in Europe for a couple thousand a year. Owners have other sources of income, and many likely lose less money if there is no NHL season at this point anyway. I'm not optimistic because at this point, Owners seem committed and players seem unwilling to go 50/50 unless they get some pretty big payments to supplement their share down the line.
Im not sure why 40 game season isnt better than no season. but 50 better than 40 and 64 better than 50. id take a 24 before a 0 though. still hoping this thing gets settled and in such a way everyone can live with it for at least a decade
I'm with you Michael. Especially when I factor in the bubble businesses and people that derive their income from dates. Any date is better than none to the street vendor, cabbies, waitstaff, etc.. In and around all 30 venues.
. And I'd win, but there would be no hockey for quite some time, because I would have taken even more of a hard line stance right from the get go and got this thing fixed permanently so we don't lose a year of hockey twice a decade and teams could make some money. Players would definitely rebel until they realized being an NHL player, and making millions of dollars a year ain't so bad (I wouldn't change minimum salaries but I'd damn sure drop maximum salaries). Owners would likely be pissed as well, because I'd be doing some things to ensure teams can't take advantage of fan bases simply because they're committed to the sport. Pretty sure I'd piss everyone off.
