HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

CBC: Cancelled Games in Pro Sports - By the Numbers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2012, 08:21 PM
  #26
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Data that proves Bettman is a failure as a leader.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 08:27 PM
  #27
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
If hockey is considered fringe to americans what does that make american football to rest of the world?fringer
I've been saying that for years, talk about a niche game.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 08:36 PM
  #28
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
If hockey is considered fringe to americans what does that make american football to rest of the world?fringer
The NHL could only dream of being in the NFL's position. The NFL has some things I dislike but it's nowhere near as pathetic as the NHL.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 08:49 PM
  #29
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
The first one was against his recommendation.
The second - was imperfect... but at least managed to get a healthy system in place... but obviously imperfect.

So i'll give you - almost 1-ish.
Around here, I'll take it. I'll next try to convince to give me at least half a point for extending the other failed CBA halfway through.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
Only if you completely ignore that it takes two sides to come to an agreement. Bettman can only fix the NHL's problems if the PA allows him to do it. NFL players accepted a big reduction in their share without any lost games.
I agree that it does take two sides, and had the NHL listened to their partners in 2005, they might no have made such a mess of the most recent CBA--- which was unilaterally written and imposed.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 09:13 PM
  #30
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
I've been saying that for years, talk about a niche game.
But americans don't care. Canada does.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 09:13 PM
  #31
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Around here, I'll take it. I'll next try to convince to give me at least half a point for extending the other failed CBA halfway through.





I agree that it does take two sides, and had the NHL listened to their partners in 2005, they might no have made such a mess of the most recent CBA--- which was unilaterally written and imposed.
Do you have a link that says the NHL unilaterally wrote the CBA? Because everything I have read indicates otherwise.

Orrthebest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 09:14 PM
  #32
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
Only if you completely ignore that it takes two sides to come to an agreement. Bettman can only fix the NHL's problems if the PA allows him to do it. NFL players accepted a big reduction in their share without any lost games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
That's true, but I mean, he's responsible for a lot of the NHL's problems. The thing about him is the players hate him and so do the fans. I can't say the same for Stern and Selig and to a lesser extent Goodell. No commisioner is hated more and disrespected more than Gary.
Fair but consider the PA took a big hit from no cap to cap. Goodell is hated, so are the other two. Nothing like gary though. Especially from Canada.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 09:19 PM
  #33
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This is excuses. When you are given a mess you clean up not make it bigger. The second CBA was an outright failure. So the next one will be as well. Track record.
Don't know about the reason being "track record", but other than that, I'd tend to agree with you. I look at it as, once you've dug yourself a grave and thrown yourself in it, it's harder to climb out of it. The owners gave the players advantages which now it becomes mighty difficult to take away.

Another way of looking at it, and I think this is valid to a degree, is that Bettman and the owners allowed their egos to get the best of them, and kept offering the players more than what this League can support. Sort of 'playing in the big leagues' when you're not truly that big yet.

And adding the players into the picture, really both sides have been trying to have their cake and eat it too.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 12-10-2012 at 09:26 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 09:52 PM
  #34
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Fair but consider the PA took a big hit from no cap to cap. Goodell is hated, so are the other two. Nothing like gary though. Especially from Canada.

People also hate the auctioneer who auctions off their former house after the bank foreclosed. Canadians hate Bettman for the job he was hired to do. The owners hired Bettman and gave him two mandates get a salary cap and grow the game in the United States.

Orrthebest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 10:14 PM
  #35
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
Do you have a link that says the NHL unilaterally wrote the CBA? Because everything I have read indicates otherwise.

If you need a link that shows the last CBA was entirely the NHL's doing, I can't help you.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 10:29 PM
  #36
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If you need a link that shows the last CBA was entirely the NHL's doing, I can't help you.
You can't provide a link because it is not true. There is zero chance the owners wanted to lower the age of free agency, wanted a cap floor or wanted to give the players more arbitration rights. These were all concessions made by the owners in order to get the players to accept the cap.

Orrthebest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 11:38 PM
  #37
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
You can't provide a link because it is not true. There is zero chance the owners wanted to lower the age of free agency, wanted a cap floor or wanted to give the players more arbitration rights. These were all concessions made by the owners in order to get the players to accept the cap.

You can believe what you want to believe. You want the entire 2004 lockout and resulting CBA in a single link.

As for the cap floor...... how do you think Gary's cost certainty system and resultant parity was going to work unless you had a range (which, yes, would include a floor)??? If you want to practice your revisionism of the universally accepted annihilation of the PA in 2005, fine, have at it. I have better things to do with my time.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 12:55 AM
  #38
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You can believe what you want to believe. You want the entire 2004 lockout and resulting CBA in a single link.

As for the cap floor...... how do you think Gary's cost certainty system and resultant parity was going to work unless you had a range (which, yes, would include a floor)??? If you want to practice your revisionism of the universally accepted annihilation of the PA in 2005, fine, have at it. I have better things to do with my time.
The NHLPA, under executive director Bob Goodenow, disputed the league's financial claims. According to the union, "cost certainty" is little more than a euphemism for a salary cap, which it had vowed never to accept. The union rejected each of the six concepts presented by the NHL, claiming they all contained some form of salary cap.

.....

On July 21, the players association ratified the agreement with 87 percent of its members voting in favor. The owners unanimously approved it the next day, officially ending the 310 day lockout. The salary cap would be adjusted each year to guarantee players 54 percent of total NHL revenues, and there would also be a salary floor. Player contracts are also guaranteed. The players' share will increase if revenues rise to specific benchmarks, while revenue sharing will split a pool of money from the 10 highest-grossing teams among the bottom 15. There was a $39 million cap in place for the first year of the CBA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2...05_NHL_lockout


Key points: 1 The PA refused every salary cap system Bettman and the owners offered. 2 There is no mention of a floor until the final agreement is made.

I think it is fairly clear whose trying to rewrite history and it is not me.

There is no need for a floor to have cost certainty. The floor gives salary certainty for the players. Your trying to make it sound like the owners said please don't let me make too much money.


Last edited by Orrthebest: 12-11-2012 at 01:08 AM.
Orrthebest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 02:05 AM
  #39
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You can believe what you want to believe. You want the entire 2004 lockout and resulting CBA in a single link.

As for the cap floor...... how do you think Gary's cost certainty system and resultant parity was going to work unless you had a range (which, yes, would include a floor)??? If you want to practice your revisionism of the universally accepted annihilation of the PA in 2005, fine, have at it. I have better things to do with my time.
I can't fathom the idea that you truly believe that based on how well informed you appear to be.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 02:21 AM
  #40
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
I can't fathom the idea that you truly believe that based on how well informed you appear to be.

Unlike this lockout, where [for me], I'm following it peripherally, I followed the last one on a figuratively hourly basis. I think the players got their rears handed to them, it was a rout and it was very hard to see how they 'won' anything at the time. There were a group of us internet keyboard warriors at that time (since I wasn't active here) who believed it was the big market teams that wanted the UFA age lowered. It was the only way that they'd ever get a shot at the Brad Richards, Suters, Parises, and Hossa of the NHL. We predicted it would hurt the smaller teams more to give up on that point than any gain from the cap range--- as long as revenues grew. Some of us even thought you'd see more big market Stanley Cup championships under this new "parity-inducing" CBA.

One thing we didn't predict, and I don't think most fans saw this coming, was the cap circumventing contracts. It seemed that rationality would decree that there was simply too much risk to 10-15 yrs contracts. The cap was supposed to bring quicker retooling (another aspect that helped bigger market teams), and thus shorter term contracts that enabled it. Why cement in a roster when you'd get reasonable turnover every 3-5 yrs? With very good HRR growth, you were always creating extra cap space anyway, but GMs figured out that the kinds of players they wanted at X dollars weren't always going to be available. Trade markets froze up, or you saw just ridiculous payment of assets for rentals. As soon as one GM started doing longer contracts, so did everyone else because they also locked in that cap number. That way-- if a good player became available, you had more room to maneuver, and you'd also locked in your own player. (Is there an argument in here somewhere for a talent shortage in spite of what we want to believe?)

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 02:54 AM
  #41
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Throwing the players a couple bones hardly constitutes "concessions."

Making UFA earlier just corrected the market. the game's best players -- at least at forward, peak in their mid 20s (if not early 20s). So now they are getting their best contracts at their peaks.

Back in the 90s and early 2000s, players weren't hitting their payday until they were 30-31 years old -- long past their peak.


In my opinion, with a salary cap, there's not much reason to even have restricted free agency.

Maybe your first contract should be 4 years (true NHL years) and then you hit UFA.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:03 AM
  #42
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Unlike this lockout, where [for me], I'm following it peripherally, I followed the last one on a figuratively hourly basis. I think the players got their rears handed to them, it was a rout and it was very hard to see how they 'won' anything at the time. There were a group of us internet keyboard warriors at that time (since I wasn't active here) who believed it was the big market teams that wanted the UFA age lowered. It was the only way that they'd ever get a shot at the Brad Richards, Suters, Parises, and Hossa of the NHL. We predicted it would hurt the smaller teams more to give up on that point than any gain from the cap range--- as long as revenues grew. Some of us even thought you'd see more big market Stanley Cup championships under this new "parity-inducing" CBA.

One thing we didn't predict, and I don't think most fans saw this coming, was the cap circumventing contracts. It seemed that rationality would decree that there was simply too much risk to 10-15 yrs contracts. The cap was supposed to bring quicker retooling (another aspect that helped bigger market teams), and thus shorter term contracts that enabled it. Why cement in a roster when you'd get reasonable turnover every 3-5 yrs? With very good HRR growth, you were always creating extra cap space anyway, but GMs figured out that the kinds of players they wanted at X dollars weren't always going to be available. Trade markets froze up, or you saw just ridiculous payment of assets for rentals. As soon as one GM started doing longer contracts, so did everyone else because they also locked in that cap number. That way-- if a good player became available, you had more room to maneuver, and you'd also locked in your own player. (Is there an argument in here somewhere for a talent shortage in spite of what we want to believe?)
I followed the last lockout at the time just the same, and came to the immediate conclusion that the built in escalators would be an issue... and they were the deathnail of the last CBA...

I never saw the decreased UFA as a owner induced issue like you did..

But like you said... never saw long term contracts coming.

At the time i was posting as devilslogic44 over at StLtoday.com... if they archive.. thats what you'll find as what i was spewing at the time... heh heh..


Last edited by DL44: 12-11-2012 at 03:11 AM.
DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 07:52 AM
  #43
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Unlike this lockout, where [for me], I'm following it peripherally, I followed the last one on a figuratively hourly basis. I think the players got their rears handed to them, it was a rout and it was very hard to see how they 'won' anything at the time. There were a group of us internet keyboard warriors at that time (since I wasn't active here) who believed it was the big market teams that wanted the UFA age lowered. It was the only way that they'd ever get a shot at the Brad Richards, Suters, Parises, and Hossa of the NHL. We predicted it would hurt the smaller teams more to give up on that point than any gain from the cap range--- as long as revenues grew. Some of us even thought you'd see more big market Stanley Cup championships under this new "parity-inducing" CBA.

One thing we didn't predict, and I don't think most fans saw this coming, was the cap circumventing contracts. It seemed that rationality would decree that there was simply too much risk to 10-15 yrs contracts. The cap was supposed to bring quicker retooling (another aspect that helped bigger market teams), and thus shorter term contracts that enabled it. Why cement in a roster when you'd get reasonable turnover every 3-5 yrs? With very good HRR growth, you were always creating extra cap space anyway, but GMs figured out that the kinds of players they wanted at X dollars weren't always going to be available. Trade markets froze up, or you saw just ridiculous payment of assets for rentals. As soon as one GM started doing longer contracts, so did everyone else because they also locked in that cap number. That way-- if a good player became available, you had more room to maneuver, and you'd also locked in your own player. (Is there an argument in here somewhere for a talent shortage in spite of what we want to believe?)
Ok, so once again you, and a few others, are reconfirming that on the surface of it it seemed that the owners were the "winners" in the last CBA and that really it seemed as though the players got screwed. All of that obviously is in contradiction to my previous post above, which essentially is more focused on the outcome of the last CBA, not how it looked at the time the negotiation process was finalized. However, I will ask this one question, related to the perspective that you and others had at that time, before I ask another question about what actually happened since that CBA was finalized. My question is this: Is there any possibility that you and others had been looking at those last CBA negotiations with some degree of pro-player bias, and it's due to that that it appeared that the players were getting screwed? I mean, looking now at the outcome of the last CBA, it's incredibly hard for me to imagine that the players could've in any way gotten screwed. The increases in salary and contract length since then have been phenomenal. Even if revenue hadn't increased as it did, still the players were ultimately to get 57% of the pie. Yes, that means the $ values for the players would've been less, but also for the owners.

Now I suppose my second question is still pretty musc directly related to the first. All these things that resulted since the last CBA, the things that you never saw coming (and perhaps the owners as well), especially the circumventions and found loopholes... Who originally purposes these things? Is it the players and their agents? Is it the owners? If this is really the owners bringing in these things, then I still see no reason to have sympathy for them, because whether they're giving the players too much directly through the CBA or through loopholes that they find to give the players more later, it's still stupid and they're still screwing the League and many teams in it, which now they're here fighting to protect. On the other hand, if it's mostly the players and their agents who find these loopholes and then force the owners to use them or else there might be colusion charges, then again... How versed are these owners being in this process? We here are not them; if we don't see it coming it's one thing, but if they don't see it coming it's quite another. And for it to be so many things, so many different ways that the CBA could be adulterated that in the end it works to benefit the players so much that many of the owners end up getting screwed. Bettman and the owners need to start seeing or forecasting some of these things, and not allow this type of situation to happen again. To end, now imagine if they create a 10-year CBA this time, and once again other means of circumvention are found, more loopholes that weren't predicted... The owners then will have an longer wait before they can try to fix it. I'm not having too much faith in them.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 08:36 AM
  #44
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Don't know about the reason being "track record", but other than that, I'd tend to agree with you. I look at it as, once you've dug yourself a grave and thrown yourself in it, it's harder to climb out of it. The owners gave the players advantages which now it becomes mighty difficult to take away.

Another way of looking at it, and I think this is valid to a degree, is that Bettman and the owners allowed their egos to get the best of them, and kept offering the players more than what this League can support. Sort of 'playing in the big leagues' when you're not truly that big yet.

And adding the players into the picture, really both sides have been trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I agree. That's why something small like this is holding the season up. It's nature.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 02:24 PM
  #45
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok, so once again you, and a few others, are reconfirming that on the surface of it it seemed that the owners were the "winners" in the last CBA and that really it seemed as though the players got screwed. All of that obviously is in contradiction to my previous post above, which essentially is more focused on the outcome of the last CBA, not how it looked at the time the negotiation process was finalized. However, I will ask this one question, related to the perspective that you and others had at that time, before I ask another question about what actually happened since that CBA was finalized. My question is this: Is there any possibility that you and others had been looking at those last CBA negotiations with some degree of pro-player bias, and it's due to that that it appeared that the players were getting screwed? I mean, looking now at the outcome of the last CBA, it's incredibly hard for me to imagine that the players could've in any way gotten screwed. The increases in salary and contract length since then have been phenomenal. Even if revenue hadn't increased as it did, still the players were ultimately to get 57% of the pie. Yes, that means the $ values for the players would've been less, but also for the owners.

Now I suppose my second question is still pretty musc directly related to the first. All these things that resulted since the last CBA, the things that you never saw coming (and perhaps the owners as well), especially the circumventions and found loopholes... Who originally purposes these things? Is it the players and their agents? Is it the owners? If this is really the owners bringing in these things, then I still see no reason to have sympathy for them, because whether they're giving the players too much directly through the CBA or through loopholes that they find to give the players more later, it's still stupid and they're still screwing the League and many teams in it, which now they're here fighting to protect. On the other hand, if it's mostly the players and their agents who find these loopholes and then force the owners to use them or else there might be colusion charges, then again... How versed are these owners being in this process? We here are not them; if we don't see it coming it's one thing, but if they don't see it coming it's quite another. And for it to be so many things, so many different ways that the CBA could be adulterated that in the end it works to benefit the players so much that many of the owners end up getting screwed. Bettman and the owners need to start seeing or forecasting some of these things, and not allow this type of situation to happen again. To end, now imagine if they create a 10-year CBA this time, and once again other means of circumvention are found, more loopholes that weren't predicted... The owners then will have an longer wait before they can try to fix it. I'm not having too much faith in them.

I think what you're doing is analyzing the CBA after 7 yrs of operations under very high revenue growth, but also very disparate revenue growth. Had it gone a different way (low growth and/or growth in the smaller markets), the dynamic would have been different. (This was an area, in retrospect, where you can see the league didn't do any scenario modeling.)

I believe the league got exactly what they wanted in the last CBA, but every time you do one thing, you create an opportunity for unintended consequences to seep into the process.

For example, Jacobs/Bruins had left themselves all sorts of space going into that lockout because they believed that the market would be flooded with available players. I remember the media touting how at the outset, you'd see salaries fall rapidly due to high supply. They kind of forgot that supply and demand, in general, is a two-headed monster. It wouldn't be the elite players that were flushed out, and furthermore, for every player a team released or had unsigned, there was still a fixed number of roster spots. The guys who were pushed out were much older vets, and they tended to be overpriced relative to the new economics. You also had the inflationary aspect in the sense that a fixed amount HAD to be spent, whether teams wanted to pay that amount or not.

Three things 'conspired' to create cap circumvention: shortage of available talent, salary averaging, and no restriction on contract term. This was a mathematical puzzle. So were the architects of that system so shortsighted that they didn't see it coming--- or, did some of them see it and hope to exploit it (and I'm looking at the big market teams)?

Neither answer looks good on the NHL.

Finally, Bettman was on record defending the cap range system as an absolute requirement to gain both cost certainty and the much vaunted parity. He probably knew it wouldn't sit well with the bigger market teams if the smaller markets were simply allowed to pocket the difference. You have to believe that parity was a goal, and if you do believe that, then you cannot argue that the NHL didn't design the cap range system to accompany linkage.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:19 PM
  #46
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think what you're doing is analyzing the CBA after 7 yrs of operations under very high revenue growth, but also very disparate revenue growth. Had it gone a different way (low growth and/or growth in the smaller markets), the dynamic would have been different. (This was an area, in retrospect, where you can see the league didn't do any scenario modeling.)

I believe the league got exactly what they wanted in the last CBA, but every time you do one thing, you create an opportunity for unintended consequences to seep into the process.

For example, Jacobs/Bruins had left themselves all sorts of space going into that lockout because they believed that the market would be flooded with available players. I remember the media touting how at the outset, you'd see salaries fall rapidly due to high supply. They kind of forgot that supply and demand, in general, is a two-headed monster. It wouldn't be the elite players that were flushed out, and furthermore, for every player a team released or had unsigned, there was still a fixed number of roster spots. The guys who were pushed out were much older vets, and they tended to be overpriced relative to the new economics. You also had the inflationary aspect in the sense that a fixed amount HAD to be spent, whether teams wanted to pay that amount or not.

Three things 'conspired' to create cap circumvention: shortage of available talent, salary averaging, and no restriction on contract term. This was a mathematical puzzle. So were the architects of that system so shortsighted that they didn't see it coming--- or, did some of them see it and hope to exploit it (and I'm looking at the big market teams)?

Neither answer looks good on the NHL.

Finally, Bettman was on record defending the cap range system as an absolute requirement to gain both cost certainty and the much vaunted parity. He probably knew it wouldn't sit well with the bigger market teams if the smaller markets were simply allowed to pocket the difference. You have to believe that parity was a goal, and if you do believe that, then you cannot argue that the NHL didn't design the cap range system to accompany linkage.
To the first bolded part, yes, most definitely I am. And again my question was: How is it possible that none of these consequences were anticipated. To which I think you answered and then summarized the essence of the answer with the second bolded part.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:58 AM
  #47
MilanKraft
Registered User
 
MilanKraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
If hockey is considered fringe to americans what does that make american football to rest of the world?fringer
How about getting TV deals for around $6 billion a year in the coming years.

Americans don't care about the rest of the world.

When is the NHL going to get $6 billion in revenue "total"?

I'll take a guess, when they double ticket prices again since they have no room for growth without TV money.

MilanKraft is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:53 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.