HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 10:30 PM
  #176
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I could name you a few others actually, but I have a feeling you might answer ''where's the proof? Anybody can say that''. So really, why should I bother.
no proofs needed, I know a few myself, but that's what they are, a few...

and there's even less who went to school to study something not related at all to the job they have (like a hockey player studying law, physics, medecine, engineering, for example)

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:31 PM
  #177
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,861
vCash: 500
Right now, a 57% cap is enough to support a 30-team league. 17 of 30 teams are profitable (median of 3 million per year) and 26 of 30 teams have increasing franchise valuations (median 13 million per year). Those are fantastic odds that would be attractive to any investor.

Once the player share drops to 50%, the NHL will become an even more attractive business. I wonder if an aggressive round of expansion will be announced.

If a 30-team league can work at 57%, why not a 36-team league at 50?%? With a lower salary cap, we could see expansion into Houston, Seattle, Hartford, Southern Ontario, Quebec City, and Cleveland, as examples.

Existing owners would benefit from collecting over a billion dollars in expansion fees, and from the fact that the salary cap would immediately drop drastically if there was aggressive expansion into weaker markets.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:33 PM
  #178
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
no proofs needed, I know a few myself, but that's what they are, a few...

and there's even less who went to school to study something not related at all to the job they have (like a hockey player studying law, physics, medecine, engineering, for example)
But why is there a few? Is it because they benefited from loans/grants/scholarships/parents paying? Question is more how many went to school+work and couldn't graduate.

And why would a hockey player have to study engineering? Why couldn't he go into a fitness related field?

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:36 PM
  #179
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But why is there a few? Is it because they benefited from loans/grants/scholarships/parents paying? Question is more how many went to school+work and couldn't graduate.

And why would a hockey player have to study engineering? Why couldn't he go into a fitness related field?
By definition, very few people have elite time-management skills and natural talents such as photographic memory, or in this case, hand-eye coordination, balance, and reaction time.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:37 PM
  #180
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But why is there a few? Is it because they benefited from loans/grants/scholarships/parents paying? Question is more how many went to school+work and couldn't graduate.

And why would a hockey player have to study engineering? Why couldn't he go into a fitness related field?
yeah, let's have all the athletes study the same thing...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:38 PM
  #181
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Well, I put more blame on Bettman than anyone here. I don't blame the players for being upset. You sign a contract and now the league wants to chop deals already signed for? That's ugly. And to make it worse Bettman's been a dick about the whole thing. If he'd started from the position that he's at now instead of the ridiculous offers he made at the beginning we'd be so much further ahead and probably would've had a full season. Instead he wanted a war.

Well, he got one...
Ugly, sure. Surprising? Not to me at least.
Bettman's been a penis head as he's always been, again, nothing surprising there.

I lost respect for players when they started talking smack in the media and made it sound as if they're gonna end up poor.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:39 PM
  #182
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Ugly, sure. Surprising? Not to me at least.
Did anyone call it in advance?

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:41 PM
  #183
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
yeah, let's have all the athletes study the same thing...

You mean the people that are interested in the same thing don't study the same thing?
You think an artist will go into engineering?..

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:42 PM
  #184
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Did anyone call it in advance?
Actually I did as soon as I heard they wanted to get more HRR as soon as next year. Only one way to get that, rollbacks.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:50 PM
  #185
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
yeah, let's have all the athletes study the same thing...
Quit doing this, it doesn't help your argument when you jump as far as possible to the extreme.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:01 PM
  #186
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Did anyone call it in advance?
it's been commented on. don't think anyone actually "called" it, since it's pretty obvious the owners want those contracts signed last summer at rebate. JJ's moves were the most obvious, as he went and lock up half his team, with what seemed like fairly generous contracts. But u can have the official "called it" title, looks like you really need it, champion

uiCk is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:07 PM
  #187
loudi94
Master of my Domain
 
loudi94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
no proofs needed, I know a few myself, but that's what they are, a few...

and there's even less who went to school to study something not related at all to the job they have (like a hockey player studying law, physics, medecine, engineering, for example)
I have taught hundreds of hockey players over the years. They do fall into different academic categories. One thing with a few exceptions they all have in common is that there isn't enough time in the day for them to excel at hockey and be academic students. The ones that do tend to have well educated parents that put in the extra time.

I've had the privilege of teaching a dozen or so kids that were drafted into the CHL and of them, only a handful managed to play in the league. Some of them were quite bright, but none of them were able to pull off the grades required to go straight to university without some upgrading. The hockey is just too demanding. Only two of them has made it as far as the AHL so far. One has a US degree. He played "A" hockey before being recruited. The other is only 20 and hopefully has bright future in the NHL. School is most likely the furthest thing from his mind.

loudi94 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:33 PM
  #188
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
it's been commented on. don't think anyone actually "called" it, since it's pretty obvious the owners want those contracts signed last summer at rebate. JJ's moves were the most obvious, as he went and lock up half his team, with what seemed like fairly generous contracts. But u can have the official "called it" title, looks like you really need it, champion
I'd love to have it, but I didn't call it :-)

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 01:14 AM
  #189
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,861
vCash: 500
http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/videos/c...animation.html

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 01:30 AM
  #190
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post

You mean the people that are interested in the same thing don't study the same thing?
You think an artist will go into engineering?..
them loving hockey doesnt mean they'd like to become coaches, trainers, etc...

so yeah, an athlete wanting to do something else once their career is over (for whatever reason) is anything but a surprise.

Tell the artist that he has to pick something for when his "artist career" is over and you may be surprised.

It's obvious actually.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 01:31 AM
  #191
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Quit doing this, it doesn't help your argument when you jump as far as possible to the extreme.
actually, the extreme is to think they wouldnt be interested in anything else but sports.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 06:17 AM
  #192
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Did anyone call it in advance?
Never came up online, but I spoke about it with some buddies. We all agreed that was why owners were over paying and also stated the length of term was related. Seemed obvious. I can guarantee you that is why agents pushed certain amounts to where they went. Anyone related to hockey knew this was coming and smart agents took advantage.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 07:10 AM
  #193
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 20,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Right now, a 57% cap is enough to support a 30-team league. 17 of 30 teams are profitable (median of 3 million per year) and 26 of 30 teams have increasing franchise valuations (median 13 million per year). Those are fantastic odds that would be attractive to any investor.

Once the player share drops to 50%, the NHL will become an even more attractive business. I wonder if an aggressive round of expansion will be announced.

If a 30-team league can work at 57%, why not a 36-team league at 50?%? With a lower salary cap, we could see expansion into Houston, Seattle, Hartford, Southern Ontario, Quebec City, and Cleveland, as examples.

Existing owners would benefit from collecting over a billion dollars in expansion fees, and from the fact that the salary cap would immediately drop drastically if there was aggressive expansion into weaker markets.
Damn we're really getting ahead of ourselves, don't we.

Kimota is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 08:32 AM
  #194
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
actually, the extreme is to think they wouldnt be interested in anything else but sports.
It seems like you have a hard time understanding conversations. Either that or you jump in the middle of one without looking back at what was being discussed.

I gave the example of a friend working in Bombardier while studying engineering. Another poster (not you) said it's much easier to work in a field that would also help you academically to which I responded hockey players can study in fitness related fields as it would help them for their sport, exercise science, sports medicine, nutrition, etc..
That's why I said ''Athletes can study in fitness related fields''. Get it now?

If a player wants to become a hockey player wants to study law at the same time, then he can do just that.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:11 AM
  #195
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It seems like you have a hard time understanding conversations. Either that or you jump in the middle of one without looking back at what was being discussed.

I gave the example of a friend working in Bombardier while studying engineering. Another poster (not you) said it's much easier to work in a field that would also help you academically to which I responded hockey players can study in fitness related fields as it would help them for their sport, exercise science, sports medicine, nutrition, etc..
That's why I said ''Athletes can study in fitness related fields''. Get it now.
really ?

I'll refresh your memory...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post

You mean the people that are interested in the same thing don't study the same thing?
You think an artist will go into engineering?..
and here's a simple awnser, not even from me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by loudi94 View Post
I have taught hundreds of hockey players over the years. They do fall into different academic categories. One thing with a few exceptions they all have in common is that there isn't enough time in the day for them to excel at hockey and be academic students. The ones that do tend to have well educated parents that put in the extra time.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:16 AM
  #196
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) Relax.

2) I'm not belittling David Fischer. He made a strategic decision to take a cookie-cutter major (Communications Studies) in order to focus more on hockey (presumably that was the reason). The fact it failed in his case does not mean it was a foolish decision, as it did have a decent probability of success.

If you think it's disgusting then work on your reading skills. It's not disgusting. David Fischer took a financial risk -- he sacrificed his education to focus on hockey -- he's allowed to do so.

To reiterate, it doesn't reflect poorly on him that his decision failed. Sometimes, plans fail, even when good people make them, and even if the plans were reasonable.

3) There are more David Fischers than there are Ryan McDonaghs.
1--I am relaxed, thanks. Since we are giving people advice, don't insult people unnecessarily, please.

2--In other words, Fischer took a risk in choosing a specific career path that did not succeed--the same as anyone else on the planet who makes a career choice that does not pan out. This is why people keep saying that the players are not taking any significant financial risk equal to what the owners incur in running a professional team. You, and some others, keep comparing the risk players take in trying to get to the NHL as the same kind of financial risk that owners take in paying all of the bills associated with running a team. I, and others, are pointing out that the risks the players take in trying to become NHL players is not equal to the owners' financial risk in running the team. In fact, the risk the players take to become players is more akin to the risk that anyone takes when trying to get into a specialized field. The players choose hockey over education, according to you. Fine. I chose a University Education over a hockey career. Had I not achieved my dream, and failed, I would be in the same position as a person who tried to be a hockey player and failed. That is why people keep stating that you can not compare the risk of trying to get to the NHL as being equal or even comparable to the risk of running an NHL team. As such, the owners take all of the financial risk in running an NHL team, pay all of the costs, and are ENTITLED to get 50% of the HRR due to the value that they bring to the NHL.

3--There are more people who fail to get a University education than who graduate with a University degree. NHL players are not special in that regard.

Quote:
The players' 57% was relative to the 76% they had before the last lockout when a relatively free market system was in place. When the players agreed to a cap and spending cuts in 2005, they did so in order to nurture a stronger league, it was an interesting tradeoff.

Anyway there were a lot of other problems with the initial offer: 5-year entry level contracts (WTF ?!?!?!), immediate 25% rollback without make-whole after an orgy of summer spending, et cetera.

It should have been obvious this summer, from the orgy of spending and tons of players being signed a year early, that owners were up to something. In hindsight it's obvious, they were hoping to unilaterally lower the value of all those contracts and thus get their players at a discount. That was the strategy, but I don't think I saw a single poster on HFboards correctly call it.

Jeremy Jacobs was never planning to spend 6 million a year on Milan Lucic. People were correct to say he was overpaid. However, the true number in mind was 4 or 5 million a year post-rollout. Nice scam.
Here is the rub: negotiations can not "open" with your best offer. The players CHOSE to get "insulted" by the owners initial offer in order to not negotiate, to delay the actual process of negotiation, as a ploy, a tactic. It backfired. It made them look petty. It is also amusing that they feel "insulted"by the same offer the owners have not only lived under for 7 years, but the players were "willing" to let the owners continue to live under in order to continue "negotiations". The players simply had to recognize that the offer was the START of negotiations and made a counter.

It was obvious that the owners AND the players were preparing for a work stoppage based on the number of over inflated contracts NEGOTIATED between the players and the owners this summer. BOTH sides knew a work stoppage was coming and both sides knew rollbacks were going to be on the table. As such, both sides tried to get the best deal they could knowing full well that the contracts could get adjusted. Saying that is not true assumes that players and agents are mentally challenged idiots, and that owners are far more intellectually capable. It just is not true. Both sides knew of these possibilities and that is why so many contracts were stunningly overpaid and had such long terms. The agents took advantage of the owners as much as the owners did the agents.

So, to put your example in perspective: Lucic"s agent knew there would be a work stoppage and potential rollbacks, so he negotiated a longer term at higher salary than otherwise would have been offered to Lucic. Yes, Jacobs knew the potential for a rollback existed. As such, he did offer more money than he normally would have. Lucic's agent knew there would be a potential rollback, so he fought for much more money than he would have normally been able to get. So, the agents, players, and owners all knew what the potential problems were and fixed the term and money value of the contracts accordingly.

Quote:
Right now, a 57% cap is enough to support a 30-team league. 17 of 30 teams are profitable (median of 3 million per year) and 26 of 30 teams have increasing franchise valuations (median 13 million per year). Those are fantastic odds that would be attractive to any investor.

Once the player share drops to 50%, the NHL will become an even more attractive business. I wonder if an aggressive round of expansion will be announced.

If a 30-team league can work at 57%, why not a 36-team league at 50?%? With a lower salary cap, we could see expansion into Houston, Seattle, Hartford, Southern Ontario, Quebec City, and Cleveland, as examples.

Existing owners would benefit from collecting over a billion dollars in expansion fees, and from the fact that the salary cap would immediately drop drastically if there was aggressive expansion into weaker markets.
If almost half of a 30 team league is not experiencing financial success, you can not say that 57% is enough to "support" the league. It is wrong. That 57% is supporting the players very well (ALL of them!), but there are owners who are not being "supported" by that 57% at all. As such, the 57% is not succeeding for the owners which is leading to the owners' desire to get a fair share of the HRR they deserve. Think about it. About 40% of the owners are not making a profit with their business. 0% of the players are are not making a profit from hockey. Actually, 100% of the players are very well paid for their chosen career. I know, I know, the owners are rich, who cares if they make money;the owners are simply using the teams for bragging rights;the owners do not need the money;etc, etc, Those are garbage arguments. Nobody says every business is "entitled" to make a profit. That does not mean they are not supposed to get a fair slice of the pie in an effort to reduce some of the bleeding for those owners who are losing money. As much as there are no laws that say business owners must make a profit, there are no laws that state that the players should get paid a larger (and 100% secure) amount than the owners just because they are players.

By the way, if the league DOES expand, that SIGNIFICANTLY helps the players as much as the owners, if not more. The players will still get the 50% of HRR AND there will be MORE jobs, mare markets, and more money. The owners are not the only beneficiaries of expansion.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:25 AM
  #197
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
really ?

I'll refresh your memory...



and here's a simple awnser, not even from me...
What are you arguing about? What are we discussing here?
Generally speaking, athletes will be interested in the same thing. But this wouldn't be the first time people don't in their preferred field because there are better opportunities or money in another field, but I bet you there's a bigger group of sports athletes that pursue studies in a related field (either at the same time, when they fail at their sport careers, or after) then some that don't. Don't think we'll find stats about that however. Just seems logical to me.
This debate is absolutely useless though and you took it on a different tangent.

Point was, athletes can study in fields that will help them for their careers. Didn't think it was that difficult to understand.

Now stop arguing just for the sake of it.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 11:33 AM
  #198
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,804
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
And that's illogical. It's not because its a pro sports league that it means it should be ran the same way. NBA has half the players than the NHL does, but players take less health risks directly related to their sport, while NFL players more than double the number of NHL players and take a lot more health risks. They don't catter to the same crowds, don't have the same TV deals, don't have similar rules. Their only similarity is that they are pro sports league managed for the sake of making money. I understand the whole point about industry standards, yet that wasn't what the NHL was going for 8 years ago. They say that now, because it fits their agenda, an excuse to reduce costs by cutting player salary rather than getting their **** together. If industry standards were so important, why didn't they try to implant a luxury tax... oh wait, the NBA doesn't have one, but the MLB does. Why? Because they are different sports with different needs when it comes to management of both the sport and the business side.

If the owners of the company I work for suddenly decided to negotiate on the basis of industry standards to reduce costs, yet are making tons of profit, and our own standards are far apart from the industry, I would refuse to negotiate on that basis, because what is already established, the concessions and litigation in prior negotiations and CBA takes much more precedence. In any negotiation, you have to give and get, you don't just deny what was done previously so that you can only 'get' and not give, and that's why the NHL is using the industry standards excuse, because they know full well that on the basis of prior negotiations, their demands are that they still 'get' and not 'give' anything away. Sure they had a lot of ground to catch up to, since prior to 2005, it was the players who 'got' most of the concessions, and that's why many people like me thought that they should be able to hold on to the status quo this time around while giving a little and getting a little in return in terms of concession. But instead of seeing this as an opportunity to offer some stability and actually strengthen the 'partnership' relationship they implanted, the owners have used it as yet another power struggle as they saw a chance to make the players pay for their own shortcomings in management, whether on the basis of single teams or league-wide management. They don't actually need the players to take this pay cut to make things work. And their dialogue is contradictory as they want equity to help cost reduction, yet they refuse to upgrade equity in revenue sharing among themselves. Refuse to deal with league wide management problems they've created themselves by implanting teams where there shouldn't be any. In all 3 other sports league, when a market dwindles, it takes a lot less time for that franchise to move on to another city, that's an industry standard which is a necessity for viability, yet the NHL stubbornly holds on to markets that are not suited to their needs. Industry standards fit only when it fits their agenda.
I don't see why it's illogical.

For instance, lets use Fedex, UPS, Purolator, DHL as examples. Suppose Fedex and UPS make big cuts to increase efficiency and profitability, do you believe the others may stay idle? They may even have different business models, different regional focuses, different benefits but they are indeed similar. Granted, this is major league sports, so it's a particular case.

You say Football has greater risk, yet football doesn't have guaranteed contracts. The NHL hasn't suggested taking them away to my knowledge. That is a HUGE plus for players relative to other leagues is it not?

The fact you bring up TV deals leads me to believe we clearly see it different. You suggest NHL doesn't have same TV deal, as if it justifies players getting more cut. I see it other way that NHL is small time compared to other leagues and can't afford that level of cost. Not to mention, arena maintenance cost is clearly higher for the NHL.

8 years ago, the NHL wanted a new system. It helped EVERYBODY. It helped the game, the owners and the players. You suggest NHL teams get their **** together. How many long term deals has PHX gave? So I suppose they are really profitable right? Dallas hasn't done it, neither has St louis, Florida, Anaheim, Winnipeg, Columbus, etc... It's Philly who has done a lot of them in Carter, Richards, Offer sheeting Weber, etc...NJD did 1 in kovalchuk, vancouver did 1 in luongo. Rangers did 3 in Drury, Gomez, Richards...

Point being, a lot of those teams aren't struggling. The point is the even the playing field so guys like nashville don't get ****ed with weber offer sheets. Don't you agree if big market teams are forced to play fair it will give small market teams a chance? Some people may start busting my balls for suggesting it then turn around and demand "MORE REVENUE SHARING!!!" to help small market teams. I think if you make the market normal AND you give them revenue sharing, there is no reason why they can't succeed.

As for MLB talk, MLB hasn't come up at all because NBA and NFL are better comparables. MLB is only 1 with luxury tax, so no, they are not industry standard. BTW, same way NHL is comparing to industry because it benefits them, NHLPA is comparing to previous CBA because it benefits them. It's only normal in business.

But NHL isn't as profitable as other leagues, so why you say "yet are making tons of profit" is confusing to me. You follow it up with "our own standards are far apart from the industry". So NFL has guaranteed contracts? In other leagues Di Pietro and Gomez would already be 10-20 mil dollars less rich.

You say the NHL refused to increase Revenue Sharing. Sorry, they boosted it at the players request.

You bring up NHL wanting to cut costs, no ****, they are businessmen. I'd argue some revenue sharing and cuts are necessary.

As for small market teams not leaving as quickly. NHL isn't as popular as other leagues. NFL can go anywhere and be relatively successful. NHL cannot. There's a good reason why they are in PHX and apparently it's mostly canadian hockey fans that don't get it. NHL is trying to grow and claim market share. Fact of the matter is say Quebec City, some people will come down to MTL and watch a game, many will still by merchandise with or without a team. In PHX, not the same. You have to convert them, it takes time. We're seeing players come out of california now, how is this a bad thing? Kids are being raised into playing hockey, that will grow our sport.

Look, what people don't understand from my point of view is that I just don't care how much owners make or how much players make. I want everyone to be profitable, including players, that's it. If players don't like the price, then you can do other jobs like the rest of us, I don't know. No one forced them to be hockey players and no one forced Owners to buy the team. As far as I'm concerned the habs can make less money as long as PHX makes more. I really don't care. My only concern is the competitive balance. Everything past the salary cap and expenditures are merely profit that will never get back into fans hands anyway. So don't take me for a person who is PRO-big market owners. I don't care about habs and leafs profit margins. I want a balanced league and call me crazy but if 30 teams can spend to the cap, that's good for everybody, including players and fans.

The reason why i'm on owners side is because as greedy or whatever you want to call it(they are both greedy anyway) they want each team to have better value. Yes, it's in their best interests but I really don't care because as a fan, it helps me and everybody else who wants to see this game be stable.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 11:42 AM
  #199
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,804
vCash: 1100
Not for anything but on academic vs athletic debate that's going on. If a kid sacrificies MAJOR parts of his education for a false hope, then he's just stupid, it has nothing to do with time. Unless the kid is really good and will postpone his higher level education to pursue a dream he should get the message at a younger age.

FWIW, I left school at 18 and returned at 22. That 4 year span wasn't because I was becoming a hockey player but for kids who are trying, if you're in a garage league by 22, maybe you should go back to school and trust me, as a person who lost 4 years, you aren't 'doomed' and your life isn't over. People are over-sympathetic. I've seen some people 40 years old going back to school. There is distance education, online courses, etc...It's just never too late so people REALLY not to stop suggesting the players sacrificed education for a dream and won't get compensated. If you're good enough for AHL you'll be making 60-350k per no? That's good compensation while you are chasing a dream. So if you don't make it, then yes, go back to school or stay in AHL, that's all.

If education is important to someone, go the NCAA(or equivalent) route where you can do less games but have schooling.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 11:46 AM
  #200
Tusk
Registered User
 
Tusk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
I saw Mike Richards at Safeway last night and he looked like he was doing fairly well, clothes, woman, and grocery wise. I just arrived from work and was debating with myself if I should spend the $5 on asparagus. So that's one way to look at the lockout.


Tusk 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 06:40 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.