To be honest I haven't checked on TSN or anywhere about the lockout since the last refusal by the owners. And you know what, I haven't missed it a bit. I was interested since the lock out began, but now it's to the point where I don't care. If they settle it, then they settle it. If they cancel this year and next year, I don't really care.
Both sides are selfish and to blame for this fiasco, but I hope they cancel the season and maybe the next one too. In the end the players always get paid and get paid too much (as in every pro sports league). It's the owners league to do with what they want and if they players want to start their own league or go elsewhere, go ahead.
Mimics what has been posted before when the Sabres have struggled - "blow it all up and start over".
per ESPN's article (which LeBrun wrote, for the record), he has a decent track record:
Quote:
Cohen has worked with the players' associations for Major League Baseball, helping end the 1994-95 strike as an outside counsel, and the NBA. He was an adviser to the NHL players' union before joining the FMCS three years ago.
Cohen mediated during the 2010 negotiations in Major League Soccer and 2011 talks in the NFL and NBA, along with this year's dispute between the NFL and its on-field officials.
Some fodder for the other side of the aisle after the handwringing over Brouwer shouting down Hamrlik and Neuvirth:
Quote:
Here’s a story illustrating the self-interested, tyrannical leadership at play on the NHL’s side:
Winnipeg Jets representation at a recent NHL Board of Governors meeting piped up to say it was opposed to engaging in a long, bloody lockout sure to stymie their franchise’s momentum and hurt the game of hockey.
It wasn’t Winnipeg owner Mark Chipman, but rather one of the alternate governors representing the Jets.
Bruins Principal Owner and Chairman of the Board of Governors Jeremy Jacobs answered by reprimanding the Winnipeg representative as one of the “new kids on the block” and informed him that he would know when he was allowed to speak in the NHL board room.
That’s the kind of hawkish, dismissive, bully mentality that's driving the bus for the NHL lockout that's now cancelled games through the middle of December.
It’s also the reason why Bruins fans should hold Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs personally responsible.
If true, and to the surprise of nobody, I'd imagine Pegula has little if any say about what's going on right now. He's just along for the ride until he "earns his stripes."
If true, and to the surprise of nobody, I'd imagine Pegula has little if any say about what's going on right now. He's just along for the ride until he "earns his stripes."
If an actual owner (not alternate governor) is told they aren't allowed to express their opinion in a Board of Governors meeting (not they have to waits to express it). Then the screams of tyranny can begin and relevance to Pegula can be asserted.
“I was disappointed to learn today of a report which claimed an exchange took place between an Alternate Governor of the Winnipeg Jets and Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins at a recent NHL Board of Governors meeting. I was present throughout all BOG proceedings and can categorically state that no such exchange between Mr. Jacobs and either one of our Alternate Governors - Patrick Phillips or Kevin Cheveldayoff - ever took place. Any suggestion otherwise is completely false.”
Joe Haggerty, the author of the story in question, stands by his report.
Seriously? Are we crediting mc79hockey over forbes? Is the sky falling?
The NHL and NHLPA can´t even get their numbers right, forbes is not perfection but a guide. Why do people think everything is exact? Then they believe one article to the next. They complain about numbers being fixed, owner collusion, profits and loses being faked. Take everything for what it is worth and not written in stone.
Last edited by heartsabres*: 11-29-2012 at 04:16 AM.
Can you disprove anything he wrote? Or did you just want to complain about something I posted, as usual?
What are you saying I have an agenda?
Sure I can disprove what he wrote. Its called Forbes.
hmmmm.....forbes? or what was that other site?
The problem with refuting the Forbes numbers is that I have no better model to offer, simply the argument that an honest mess is better than a clean lie. I can’t point to sources and say “All of their numbers are wrong.”
You want sources when your source didn´t use sorces??? Hmmm......sounds about right. Which means it is only his opinion and not fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes
here is my source, its called credibility.
Again, that’s a huge miss – according to Forbes, the Maple Leafs brought in $1MM in revenue less than the New York Rangers – counting playoff games – of which the Rangers played zero and the Leafs seven. According to the NHLPA’s proposal, the Rangers were more than $19MM back in regular season revenue alone. Again, they have to be out by more than 25% on someone here.
what does your blogger even mean there? You might as well quote Eklund.
Last edited by heartsabres*: 11-29-2012 at 07:10 AM.
If you actually read the article, many of his question stem from information found from the PA proposal from the last lockout.
His point is that if you take the numbers found in other sources, and compare them to Forbes' numbers, things don't quite add up.
You cherry picked one sentence. If you read the preceeding paragraphs, his point is more clear.
Quote:
What about the top end? Well, according to the Forbes, the Toronto Maple Leafs, who went two rounds in the playoffs that year, were second in the NHL in revenue, finishing $1MM behind the New York Rangers, who did not make the playoffs. The NHLPA proposal talks about one team (it doesn’t specify which team) that has revenues that dwarf even the second place team. You can infer from the proposal that this team had regular season revenues that were $19MM more than the team with the second highest revenues. You can further infer from the ordered list that that team was the Toronto Maple Leafs – they were the team that would have paid the most in revenue sharing and, therefore, the highest grossing team in the league.
Again, that’s a huge miss – according to Forbes, the Maple Leafs brought in $1MM in revenue less than the New York Rangers – counting playoff games – of which the Rangers played zero and the Leafs seven. According to the NHLPA’s proposal, the Rangers were more than $19MM back in regular season revenue alone. Again, they have to be out by more than 25% on someone here.
He also cites multiple other cases where published information doesn't mesh with what Forbes puts out.
I'm not saying this guy is dead right here, but he raises enough questions, backed up with facts, about Forbes' numbers. They may not be as gospel as we all thought they were.
Players here in the NHL complain to no end about their jobs and salaries. Yet they have never mentioned(to my knowledge) that when they go over to Europe, they're taking a job away from someone else. Can't say that I've ever heard a player say, "I'm worried about my job here. I'm not going to take away a job from some guy in Europe. I wouldn't be happy if that happened to me here."
This, to me, is an example of pure greed. It's all about THEM.
You could also make the argument that every European player who comes to the NHL (when they actually play) is taking a job away from a North American player, but nobody seems to ever make that argument because it doesn't fit their narrative.
FWIW, some NHL players have publiclly stated they don't want to go Europe because of the reason you stated. It's not a flood, but it has been said.
