HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2012, 10:36 AM
  #876
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 35,057
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therick67 View Post
Sure, and he's done that very well. Why are the players 'greddy' for wanting to do the same? JJ has done very well off this league and Bruins fans, yet he's leading the charge thats going to lead to another lost season. Great.
PLayers are entitled to do whatever they want... However, JJ can just put his money into something else to make more money...THe players, well, they can get other jobs and make 100k being some companies PR guy....

WBC8 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:38 AM
  #877
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
PLayers are entitled to do whatever they want... However, JJ can just put his money into something else to make more money...THe players, well, they can get other jobs and make 100k being some companies PR guy....
Maybe JJ can hire them to sell hotdogs at Celtic games.

Therick67 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:56 AM
  #878
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,841
vCash: 500
...

Didn't realize that this was updated. Gives us a little more something when talking numbers.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

Looks significantly different than it did before.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:57 AM
  #879
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I think there would be an issue with the inherent risk the owners would be taking on. The owners want 50/50 right now and there's numbers out there (from Forbes) that show that while such a split would help the league in general (in conjunction with the owners now proposed 200 mill revenue sharing pool), there are still a few teams that would struggle to make money. Not a huge issue imo however as you expect teams who are in a rough market and who aren't competitive to struggle financially, and honestly, the owners would have a hard time convincing players to go any lower when the NBA and NFL both just settled at such a split. Those weak teams need to be in a situation where they could grow the market while minimizing losses, and the 50/50 number should put most if not all of those teams in just such a situation. Healthy league, more revenues for everyone, happy owners.

A sliding scale that sees players shares increase with declining revenues does the exact opposite and puts all teams in somewhat more of a crunch, especially the weaker teams. The 200mill revenue sharing figure doesn't change but the revenue all teams take in decreases two fold. First because obviously the revenue has shrunk (else they wouldn't be in such a situation), and second because players share actually increases.

Now yes, the owners are already offering more money in form of make whole, but that was done at least in part to help avoid lost revenues due to missed games. That number isn't likely going to increase now, and will most likely go down or even away altogether as the owners refuse to foot the bill for the lockout when there are two parties involved. A sliding scale that sees the players share increase with lost revenues (most likely due to the lockout) absolves the players of all blame, and makes the owners essentially foot the bill long term even if you prorate the shortened season.

I think there will have to be a ridiculous amount of pressure from many of the owners to get this lockout to end in anything other then a 50/50 split, and I can't see that happening. There are too many teams losing money, and there are too few teams making significant money who truly stand to lose something in lost revenues.
Well thought-out response and your key point is spot on...by providing "downside protection" to players through increased HRR share in down years, the NHL would essentially be accepting the full financial ramifications of the lockout. However, they would be doing so in exchange for a disproportionate share of HRR in growth years.

It all comes down to dollars, and I think this suggestion by the owners and players that principle has a place here is folly. For example, the players last proposal agreed to linkage but then effectively de-linked when revenue decreased, and set a dollar figure where de-linkage would kick in. Owners, presumably, rejected that and will be reluctant to back off of full linkage out of "principle", right? But does anyone doubt that if the players' dollar figure was one the owners felt would never actually come to pass, that they'd back off that "full linkage" concept and accept it? Same thing with make whole. Does anyone doubt the players would back off that request if the owners upped their HRR cut?

So what I'm suggesting here is that the NHL find out just how serious the PA is about downside protection. If the entire reason players resist complete linkage is because they are scared of the down years, then maybe the owners take advantage of that and offer to cushion their down years in exchange for a higher cut of the up years. You can see why this also could work for owners because practically speaking, there's a limit to the downside. At some point the league would lockout the players again or shut down, so offering some insurance shouldn't kill them, whereas another few basis points in the up years could be huge.

bp13 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:58 AM
  #880
Fire Julien
Registered User
 
Fire Julien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bergen
Country: Norway
Posts: 17,640
vCash: 1340
Jeremy Jacobs: Boston Bruins owner, mean old NHL lockout bully
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3361--nhl.html


Looks like Jacobs is the Grinch Who Stole The Hanukkah

Fire Julien is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:04 AM
  #881
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caballo Blanco View Post
Jeremy Jacobs: Boston Bruins owner, mean old NHL lockout bully
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3361--nhl.html


Looks like Jacobs is the Grinch Who Stole The Hanukkah
shhhh.. this is a jeremy jacobs appreciation thread.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:11 AM
  #882
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
01-02 Wings 64.4mil...league average--38mil

Cant find the other numbers, but in 98-99 after their two straight, they were at 48 mil and the average was 29... Don't the same people ***** about the Yankees doing that kind of stuff?

As far as changing his ways...don't all businesses want cost certainty? He got that, which he was fighting for, and spent to the limit, every year. Again, nothing personal, just business...to expect anyone else to run THEIR business differently is ridiculous.
Where did the core of those Red Wings teams come from? Drafting.

And then they spent to keep it together and add the pices they needed.

The Rangers tried to buy Cups, they failed. The Red Wings did everything well, including using their money well. Jacobs did not care about winning, so he didn't.

And you missed the point. Jacobs only spent when he knew it was a fail-safe. He never cared about winning until he could so and make money. Doesn't mean he deserves ridicule or scorn, but he sure as **** doesn't deserve praise.

He was more concerned about money then, just as he is now.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:12 AM
  #883
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,515
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
01-02 Wings 64.4mil...league average--38mil

Cant find the other numbers, but in 98-99 after their two straight, they were at 48 mil and the average was 29... Don't the same people ***** about the Yankees doing that kind of stuff?

As far as changing his ways...don't all businesses want cost certainty? He got that, which he was fighting for, and spent to the limit, every year. Again, nothing personal, just business...to expect anyone else to run THEIR business differently is ridiculous.
Illitch was putting most of his money into the Red Wings- I remember the Tigers were losing 100 + games with a payroll about a third of the Wings, whereas the Bruins were about a third less than the Red Sox.

I was ripped back then because Detroit was CLEARLY 100% trying to buy Cups.

The Red Wings were the Yankees of hockey that time- I know, I had Bruins tickets and was so ticked our payroll was at less than half the Wings who were running about 80 M to Boston's 40ish.

DKH is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:12 AM
  #884
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
You know what this paragraph says to me? That your argument is that the owners are holding out for something arbitrary at this point. A meaningless percentage split. An adherence to a number that looks nice and round, rather than an actual solution to the problem at hand.

And let's shorten the bolded to just "too few teams making significant money" just for the sake of honesty, may we? Not many teams LOSE significant money either. Too many teams on just either side of par for a financially healthy league.
Interesting, I'm curious as to why it says that to you.

To me, when you have too few teams making money and far more losing money (estimates are what, 18 of 30 teams in the red) and your by far largest expense are rising player costs because they take 57% of revenue off the top, the obvious answer is to restructure the player and owner percentages to bring the number of teams losing money to a more reasonable and acceptable level. A true 50/50 split in combination with realistic and reasonable revenue sharing totals makes this happen. This is what I believe the owners to be holding out for (although no doubt there are those already making money who just want to see their share of the pot grow... but they've imo earned that right when they bought the franchise in the first place).

It's the players whom I believe are holding out for something arbitrary. They are employees of the NHL who make the money they do because the NHL is here in the first place. They don't make it otherwise. The owners have approached them and said there are too many teams losing money, this is what we need to do to adjust in order to fix it, offering the players 46%. The players balked at the number because they'd grown accustomed to 57% in the previous deal regardless of the fact that the numbers state teams are struggling to meet current player contract demands. The Shea Weber example is such a good one imo because it's a microcosm of the entire situation imo. Player knows what his company can feasibly and comfortably offer him in terms of compensation (which is realistically a ridiculously high number anyway and more then fair compensation), but player wants more because the rules out there allow him to attempt to milk his franchise even though it will have a negative effect on them in the long run. The players feel entitled to a higher percentage of revenues regardless of the fact that most NHL teams can't support it and that two other North American Professional Sports Players Associations have resigned themselves to 50/50 splits just recently.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:16 AM
  #885
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
By the way, EverettMike, a guy that has never once blamed the Yankees for spending their money to win.

Never.

I'll criticize MLB for allowing it to happen because it isn't good for the game, but not the Yankees.

The Yankees are driven by one goal - win championships. Those are the best types of owners. And while I ****ing hate those mother-****ing *******s, they aren't at fault for using the resources they have to make their fans happy by winning titles.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:18 AM
  #886
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,515
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
good news is one week from today we may not have a deal but we will know what direction this is all going....can't wait

If they do blow it up I would guess next time we see hockey there are less than 30 teams

DKH is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:18 AM
  #887
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
shhhh.. this is a jeremy jacobs appreciation thread.
Feels that way.

And again, I think the anti-Jacobs stuff is too ridulous sometimes, thought booing him at the banner raising was awful, and thinks he deserves credit for finally turning this ship around, but man this thread has got me scratching my head.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:22 AM
  #888
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,515
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
By the way, EverettMike, a guy that has never once blamed the Yankees for spending their money to win.

Never.

I'll criticize MLB for allowing it to happen because it isn't good for the game, but not the Yankees.

The Yankees are driven by one goal - win championships. Those are the best types of owners. And while I ****ing hate those mother-****ing *******s, they aren't at fault for using the resources they have to make their fans happy by winning titles.
Steinbrenner overall was a bully and crap owner. Wow. He spent money. He knows jack about baseball (in fairness I'm comparing him to myself who has BBA infront of me as I type) and if not banned from baseball would have never won after 1978. This is a guy who if owned the Bruins under the same system would have traded Tyler Seguin for Shane Doan.

DKH is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:24 AM
  #889
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
Steinbrenner overall was a bully and crap owner. Wow. He spent money. He knows jack about baseball (in fairness I'm comparing him to myself who has BBA infront of me as I type) and if not banned from baseball would have never won after 1978. This is a guy who if owned the Bruins under the same system would have traded Tyler Seguin for Shane Doan.
Sure, but he'd actually know who Seguin and Doan are.

Therick67 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:24 AM
  #890
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Interesting, I'm curious as to why it says that to you.

To me, when you have too few teams making money and far more losing money (estimates are what, 18 of 30 teams in the red) and your by far largest expense are rising player costs because they take 57% of revenue off the top, the obvious answer is to restructure the player and owner percentages to bring the number of teams losing money to a more reasonable and acceptable level. A true 50/50 split in combination with realistic and reasonable revenue sharing totals makes this happen. This is what I believe the owners to be holding out for (although no doubt there are those already making money who just want to see their share of the pot grow... but they've imo earned that right when they bought the franchise in the first place).

It's the players whom I believe are holding out for something arbitrary. They are employees of the NHL who make the money they do because the NHL is here in the first place. They don't make it otherwise. The owners have approached them and said there are too many teams losing money, this is what we need to do to adjust in order to fix it, offering the players 46%. The players balked at the number because they'd grown accustomed to 57% in the previous deal regardless of the fact that the numbers state teams are struggling to meet current player contract demands. The Shea Weber example is such a good one imo because it's a microcosm of the entire situation imo. Player knows what his company can feasibly and comfortably offer him in terms of compensation (which is realistically a ridiculously high number anyway and more then fair compensation), but player wants more because the rules out there allow him to attempt to milk his franchise even though it will have a negative effect on them in the long run. The players feel entitled to a higher percentage of revenues regardless of the fact that most NHL teams can't support it and that two other North American Professional Sports Players Associations have resigned themselves to 50/50 splits just recently.
It MUST be 50/50 or NO DEAL.

51/49? Take a ****in' hike!

Arbitrary number. Still no proposal on the table for how to distribute that saved money in any efficient manner. Still no idea why it MUST be that split.

With no statement as to what is being attempted to accomplish, I can't imagine why the owners would be dead-set on any number?

And I think it was you who just got on people's cases for comparing the NHL's CBA with other leagues for some things and then claiming it was offside for others?

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:26 AM
  #891
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
Steinbrenner overall was a bully and crap owner. Wow. He spent money. He knows jack about baseball (in fairness I'm comparing him to myself who has BBA infront of me as I type) and if not banned from baseball would have never won after 1978. This is a guy who if owned the Bruins under the same system would have traded Tyler Seguin for Shane Doan.
Steinbrenner was a bully.

And for a long time his decision making sucked.

But that isn't what I said Dan. I said that he (and still now his sons) used their greatest resource - a huge sum of money - for the purpose of trying to win titles.

That was and is the motivation for the Yankees. Championships.

Steinbrenner used his money to try and reach that goal ever year.

What is wrong with that?

EverettMike is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:32 AM
  #892
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
...

Didn't realize that this was updated. Gives us a little more something when talking numbers.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

Looks significantly different than it did before.
...and if you read this http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=4784 it'll tell you what I said a while ago: don't take Forbes numbers as gospel. In fact, this time they look even more out of wack then before

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:35 AM
  #893
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
It MUST be 50/50 or NO DEAL.

51/49? Take a ****in' hike!

Arbitrary number. Still no proposal on the table for how to distribute that saved money. Still no idea why it MUST be that split.

With no statement as to what is being attempted to accomplish, I can't imagine why the owners would be dead-set on any number?

And I think it was you who just got on people's cases for comparing the NHL's CBA with other leagues for some things and then claiming it was offside for others?
Not I. I think they're completely relevant and have since the outset. bp13 made a point that the other two leagues weren't relevant so perhaps you are mistaking my opinion for his, but I don't believe he actually "got on anyone's case about it". Rather just made clear, concise points as to why he thought that way. I personally disagree, but that's just my opinion, the argument is easily there.

And how do we know the owners wouldn't settle for a 51/49 split? Have the players offered that yet? I believe they offered a 50/50 split but insisted on double the make whole payment as well as "downside protection" (thanks bp13 for that term). There are also the contractual concessions proposed by the league which the players stoutly refuse to consider even though I'm sure most of us realize there is an issue with cap circumvention and long term contracts.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:37 AM
  #894
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
...and if you read this http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=4784 it'll tell you what I said a while ago: don't take Forbes numbers as gospel. In fact, this time they look even more out of wack then before
I noticed you pointing this out in the other thread.

Do you have something that you can go to with integrity? Or are we all so thick in the dark about where the numbers lie, that any opinion that anyone has here is entirely invalid?

The NHL went from saying how good everything was, to saying how awful everything IS. I've been just attempting to figure out why we're HERE in the middle of a lockout that makes so little sense.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:39 AM
  #895
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
Where did the core of those Red Wings teams come from? Drafting.

And then they spent to keep it together and add the pices they needed.

The Rangers tried to buy Cups, they failed. The Red Wings did everything well, including using their money well. Jacobs did not care about winning, so he didn't.

And you missed the point. Jacobs only spent when he knew it was a fail-safe. He never cared about winning until he could so and make money. Doesn't mean he deserves ridicule or scorn, but he sure as **** doesn't deserve praise.

He was more concerned about money then, just as he is now.
Ya i'll admit i go overboard with the hatred of JJ.. he isn't terrible and there has been much worse than him. But the praise for him and people thinking he's "changed" or really cares is ridiculous. As i said before i was naive enough to buy season tickets in 08 when it was pretty cheap. Its gone up as the talent level/competitive level has gotten better.. He's raised my tickets alone close to 85%.. he shouldn't be saying hes for the betterment of the game when he charges those prices. If the owners came out and said.. listen are bottom line is looking worse and worse. We want it to get better.. are goal is to make more money for ourselves and the franchises i'd understand. The "where doing this for the game" garbage is ridiculous. Just like the whole "poor us" attitude by the players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
Feels that way.

And again, I think the anti-Jacobs stuff is too ridulous sometimes, thought booing him at the banner raising was awful, and thinks he deserves credit for finally turning this ship around, but man this thread has got me scratching my head.
I can't blame him for the moves that weren't or were made.. That goes on harry's head. I did however boo him at the banner ceremony. And I will never apologize for that.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:50 AM
  #896
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
I noticed you pointing this out in the other thread.

Do you have something that you can go to with integrity? Or are we all so thick in the dark about where the numbers lie, that any opinion that anyone has here is entirely invalid?

The NHL went from saying how good everything was, to saying how awful everything IS. I've been just attempting to figure out why we're HERE in the middle of a lockout that makes so little sense.
As is pointed out in the article, during the last lockout the NHLPA inadvertently released the NHL numbers to the media ( I also believe he linked to it in his article?) and he compares it to the Forbes numbers.

As for Tyler, he has integrity with those in the media. In fact, some of the major media point to him regularly when it has anything to do with numbers.

I get that we all want the information and we want it now. Fact is, that is not going to happen. I'm simply pointing out as I have in the past, that Forbes numbers are not sacred nor should they be deemed as such.

Tyler does a good job breaking down the last lockout and how far apart they were. I happen to think they are closer then what he does this time, but not by much.

Bell/Rogers just bought MLSE which includes the Leafs, Raptors, Marlies, Toronto FC, The ACC and other properties for $1.07 billion less then a year ago. Are the Leafs worth that just themselves now?

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:52 AM
  #897
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Not I. I think they're completely relevant and have since the outset. bp13 made a point that the other two leagues weren't relevant so perhaps you are mistaking my opinion for his, but I don't believe he actually "got on anyone's case about it". Rather just made clear, concise points as to why he thought that way. I personally disagree, but that's just my opinion, the argument is easily there.

And how do we know the owners wouldn't settle for a 51/49 split? Have the players offered that yet? I believe they offered a 50/50 split but insisted on double the make whole payment as well as "downside protection" (thanks bp13 for that term). There are also the contractual concessions proposed by the league which the players stoutly refuse to consider even though I'm sure most of us realize there is an issue with cap circumvention and long term contracts.
You did:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I think there will have to be a ridiculous amount of pressure from many of the owners to get this lockout to end in anything other then a 50/50 split, and I can't see that happening. There are too many teams losing money, and there are too few teams making significant money who truly stand to lose something in lost revenues.
My response was to that statement. If you're open to the idea of 51/49, then how about 52/48? If not, why not?

The statement that it MUST be 50/50 is one based on the belief that it MUST be based on an arbitrary number. Unless one can outline how the league can take in 50% of revenue and be hunky-dory, while being in the ***** for taking in 48%.

The players' numbers are anything BUT arbitrary. The players' numbers exist on their current contracts and on the restrictions of escrow outlined in the previous CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
We've been hearing "look at how the NFL shares revenues" throughout these discussions, comparing a league who brings in more revenue in national broadcasting contracts then the NHL does period. If we can compare them at that level why can't we compare players share?
You said that we COULDN'T compare revenue-sharing with the NFL. And you're RIGHT. We can't. The revenues they pull are vastly different than what we see in hockey.

But if it's invalid to compare with other leagues, then it's kind of... It's kind of invalid to compare with other leagues. You know what I mean? We can use some general guidelines, but staunch stances on specific numbers is an effort to pick and choose evidence that supports nothing but one's own view.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:53 AM
  #898
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
01-02 Wings 64.4mil...league average--38mil

Cant find the other numbers, but in 98-99 after their two straight, they were at 48 mil and the average was 29... Don't the same people ***** about the Yankees doing that kind of stuff?

As far as changing his ways...don't all businesses want cost certainty? He got that, which he was fighting for, and spent to the limit, every year. Again, nothing personal, just business...to expect anyone else to run THEIR business differently is ridiculous.
I don't know off the top of my head how many of those players were signed as free agents, but in fairness, the Wings drafted extremely well for quite a number of years.

Maybe they were just paying many of their home grown players well?

Something that the Bruins were not accused of back then, although I suspect Sinden shares much, if not most of that blame pie.

Edit: I should have read the whole thread before responding...sorry for the redundancy!

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:55 AM
  #899
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
Ya i'll admit i go overboard with the hatred of JJ.. he isn't terrible and there has been much worse than him. But the praise for him and people thinking he's "changed" or really cares is ridiculous. As i said before i was naive enough to buy season tickets in 08 when it was pretty cheap. Its gone up as the talent level/competitive level has gotten better.. He's raised my tickets alone close to 85%.. he shouldn't be saying hes for the betterment of the game when he charges those prices. If the owners came out and said.. listen are bottom line is looking worse and worse. We want it to get better.. are goal is to make more money for ourselves and the franchises i'd understand. The "where doing this for the game" garbage is ridiculous. Just like the whole "poor us" attitude by the players.



I can't blame him for the moves that weren't or were made.. That goes on harry's head. I did however boo him at the banner ceremony. And I will never apologize for that.
I thought that was embarrasing. I don't love him by any stretch of the imagination, but there's a time and a place, and that's not it. Boo the **** out of him at the State of the Bruins or any other opportunity you have to be in the same place with him.

Your hatered for the owner overshadows the most exciting moment you're likely to have as a Bruins fan? Put it aside for a night and enjoy the frigging festivities. There's plenty of other opportunity to boo him if you feel like it's deserved.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 12:05 PM
  #900
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
As is pointed out in the article, during the last lockout the NHLPA inadvertently released the NHL numbers to the media ( I also believe he linked to it in his article?) and he compares it to the Forbes numbers.

As for Tyler, he has integrity with those in the media. In fact, some of the major media point to him regularly when it has anything to do with numbers.

I get that we all want the information and we want it now. Fact is, that is not going to happen. I'm simply pointing out as I have in the past, that Forbes numbers are not sacred nor should they be deemed as such.

Tyler does a good job breaking down the last lockout and how far apart they were. I happen to think they are closer then what he does this time, but not by much.

Bell/Rogers just bought MLSE which includes the Leafs, Raptors, Marlies, Toronto FC, The ACC and other properties for $1.07 billion less then a year ago. Are the Leafs worth that just themselves now?
Which would only mean that there is hardly a person here who has a valid opinion on this entire process. We're basing our views on this matter on ignorance alone.

When did your opinion on the Forbes numbers change? You pointed them out to me a few months ago to refute a position I held and lately have claimed illegitimacy. Was it this cat?

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
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 07:42 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.