HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Lockout Thread Part I

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2012, 06:39 AM
  #951
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
You should have had them quote you as "John "SuperGenius" Wooten" ... that would have definitely been funny.

Well said though. I think you stand for the true hockey fan, the fan that will always love the game, regardless of what happens. The people who are throwing the NHL under the bus will eventually be back for this reason, and are just kidding themselves (and everyone else). While I'm not a big dollar spender on NHL merchandise or tickets, I will admit that I will be hard pressed to spend any of my hard-earned money on NHL anything for the foreseeable future, but I won't go around making comments about not ever coming back, because it simply isn't true.

What the NHL should be concerned with is the loss of the casual fan. I know so many people (living in a huge hockey area without an NHL team) who only follow the "big NHL games" - such as the Winter Classic, the Stanley Cup Final, or whatever. Clearly, these are the big revenue events, and I fear that this lockout, more than any other, will result in the loss of importance of these large events. People simply won't care to tune in, because they have other hobbies to keep them busy.

This is where the game is going to suffer.
I believe that the bozos who own the big-revenue clubs and run Bettman remain unconvinced of this necessity. They think that, because they own a successful (financially, at least) franchise, they own "the game." I believe that, had they not been able to charge exhorbitant expansion fees, they would have never cared one whit for a team in any of the newer markets. And they could care less about them now, that's for sure.

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassť is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 07:20 AM
  #952
JACKETfan
Real Blue Jacketfan
 
JACKETfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Venice
Country: United States
Posts: 9,234
vCash: 500
Leaving your money on account with the team sends the wrong message to the owners.

Worse, your money is paying the salaries of the people who are ruining your "beautiful game".

The lockout would end if the majority of STHs pulled their money. And its not like there's going to be SRO when the dumbasses finally come to their senses.

-----
I do not want them to play a shortened season. I want to see them lose so much money on both sides that they don't do this sht again.

JACKETfan is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 07:54 AM
  #953
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKETfan View Post
Worse, your money is paying the salaries of the people who are ruining your "beautiful game".
Its also paying the salaries of the guys and gals updating bluejackets.com, the team's twitter account, and FaceBook page and have to deal with all the hateful comments blaming them for the lockout every time they try and post anything. It is paying the salaries of the ticket agents who have to listen to countless frustrated fans vent and deal with refunds. It is paying the salary of those still doing good things with the BlueJackets Foundation. It is continuing to provide an income to all associated with the team who have taken less during this time through no fault of their own.

That's why my money (as miniscule as it may be compared to others) is still with the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKETfan View Post
I do not want them to play a shortened season. I want to see them lose so much money on both sides that they don't do this sht again.
That is pretty much what I've been saying all along. I want this to be the lockout that ends the concept of lockouts. While I have no problem with a shortened season being considered a "legitimate" season, I don't want to see one personally because I selected the games in my STH package based on ability to travel from Cleveland (all Friday and Saturday night games, or Sunday matinees.) I don't want a completely redone schedule which force me to take a bunch of weeknights.

Skraut is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:05 PM
  #954
IBleedUnionBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedUnionBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKETfan View Post
Leaving your money on account with the team sends the wrong message to the owners.
I agree with you. I decided to take my money out. And my wife and I determined that the entire sum will be put on my home and knock down principal. That will save me in interest more then what keeping the money with the CBJ will earn.

IBleedUnionBlue is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 01:37 PM
  #955
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKETfan View Post
Leaving your money on account with the team sends the wrong message to the owners.

Worse, your money is paying the salaries of the people who are ruining your "beautiful game".

The lockout would end if the majority of STHs pulled their money. And its not like there's going to be SRO when the dumbasses finally come to their senses.
The only people who are getting paid a salary right now are the ones who aren't ruining a damn thing. Scouts aren't ruining anything, ticket reps aren't ruining anything, PR and media relations aren't ruining anything, equipment managers and staffers aren't ruining anything...yet somehow they're the ones who have to actually face the public and be villainized.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 02:52 PM
  #956
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBleedUnionBlue View Post
I agree with you. I decided to take my money out. And my wife and I determined that the entire sum will be put on my home and knock down principal. That will save me in interest more then what keeping the money with the CBJ will earn.
Having something (more) constructive to do with the money isn't the same as "sending the wrong message."

Double-Shift Lassť is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 03:41 PM
  #957
Samkow
Global Moderator
Young Guns
 
Samkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Samkow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The only people who are getting paid a salary right now are the ones who aren't ruining a damn thing. Scouts aren't ruining anything, ticket reps aren't ruining anything, PR and media relations aren't ruining anything, equipment managers and staffers aren't ruining anything...yet somehow they're the ones who have to actually face the public and be villainized.
So you're telling me Gary Bettman doesn't, in actuality, run the Blue Jackets Facebook page and me posting "durrhurr quit waiting time and lets play hockey for the tr00 fans" after every post isn't doing anything?

__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
Samkow is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 06:59 PM
  #958
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,402
vCash: 500
great meeting today with mediators. No face to face meeting between the sides. WTF?

EspenK is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 07:05 PM
  #959
JACKETfan
Real Blue Jacketfan
 
JACKETfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Venice
Country: United States
Posts: 9,234
vCash: 500
Look, I feel sorry for all the COLLATERAL DAMAGE, but what the hell is left to the average fan? Given what they've done to the game, it's apparent that MONEY is the only leverage these guys understand.

And before anyone gets on their high horse about "supporting the little guys" ...let's remember that every time your 401K sells stock to make a buck somewhere else, or you buy at WalMart instead of the local toystore, or pull back on eating out, or shop Kroger instead of the farm market, --THAT THESE ALSO HURT "the little guys" somewhere.

If you want to keep your money under their mattress, go for it. But at some point, money is the only voice you have as a fan, and perhaps its time for the FANS of the game to be heard.

JACKETfan is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 07:57 PM
  #960
SuperGenius
Moderator
For Duty & Humanity!
 
SuperGenius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKETfan View Post
Leaving your money on account with the team sends the wrong message to the owners.

Worse, your money is paying the salaries of the people who are ruining your "beautiful game".

The lockout would end if the majority of STHs pulled their money. And its not like there's going to be SRO when the dumbasses finally come to their senses.

-----
I do not want them to play a shortened season. I want to see them lose so much money on both sides that they don't do this sht again.
You are entitled to your opinion.

I'd like to think that leaving my money with the team helps the folks who aren't doing anything but suffering with the rest of us. Scouting staff, ticket reps, marketing folks, the new president, the GM, the coaching staff...

There's a lot more to the CBJ than JPM, and I don't know that you could convince me that he isn't as helpless in all of this as the rest of us, Owner or not.

SuperGenius is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:17 PM
  #961
CBJWennberg41
Formerly CBJBrassard
 
CBJWennberg41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
great meeting today with mediators. No face to face meeting between the sides. WTF?
Thats what mediation is.

CBJWennberg41 is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 11:20 PM
  #962
Robert
Foligno family
 
Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: KY & Lime Lake NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,355
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Robert
Bottomline, no NHL hockey...... Why?

Robert is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 11:24 PM
  #963
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKETfan View Post
Look, I feel sorry for all the COLLATERAL DAMAGE, but what the hell is left to the average fan? Given what they've done to the game, it's apparent that MONEY is the only leverage these guys understand.

And before anyone gets on their high horse about "supporting the little guys" ...let's remember that every time your 401K sells stock to make a buck somewhere else, or you buy at WalMart instead of the local toystore, or pull back on eating out, or shop Kroger instead of the farm market, --THAT THESE ALSO HURT "the little guys" somewhere.

If you want to keep your money under their mattress, go for it. But at some point, money is the only voice you have as a fan, and perhaps its time for the FANS of the game to be heard.
To make a political analogy if I can, survey after survey has shown that people hate Congress as a whole, blame it for the all of the nations problems, but their congresscritter, he/she is ok, and not the problem.

Its the same situation here. From a fans perspective, it would be best if the league suffered for this lockout. If owners lost money, players saw the cap go down etc. But nobody wants that to happen to their team. In Canada, the teams will just keep on making the same money as if nothing ever happened. You can do that when you have waiting lists for season tickets miles (well I guess it would be kilometers) long.

In the US, some markets are going to be severely hurt, and Columbus is going to be one of them. I don't think there is still enough revenue sharing in the current proposal to make much of a difference. The lease deal helps, but when the team was losing 20 million in previous years, that deficit will be hard to erase when you factor in the lower attendance that is sure to arise from this lockout.

So while I may wish ill on the league as a whole, I have a hard time doing actions that hurt my team directly. Maybe it is because I still live in this state, and care about the economic benefits that a pro franchise brings to Ohio's largest city. Maybe because I still can't look at the lease deal as a "sure thing" which will insure a team struggling to bring in fans, and losing money will never be lured away. (As a former Browns fan, relocation will always be a potential worry for me no matter how good the team is.) For me, the team is still something more than a team to watch on the Center Ice package. It is a place I can take my family and enjoy a game in person. And as much as I hate the current lockout situation, that is something I don't want to lose.

Skraut is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:14 AM
  #964
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Bottomline, no NHL hockey...... Why?
Well little Bobby, let me tell you a story.

In early 2000s many teams decided to throw big money at players in the hopes of winning Lord Stanley's cup.

A few General Managers looked at all of the high priced talent, and like Poke-e-mon, felt that they "Gotta Catch'em All" This generated problems for the owners who liked to spend their money on themselves rather than on players.

To insure themselves a profit, they decided to institute a salary cap. This displeased the players, who were happy to take whatever the General Managers were offering. They did not want things to change.

Since they could not come to an agreement in the offseason the owners locked the players out. Some of the players went to Europe and played for less money, some sat on their couches and did nothing. Eventually players started looking at the money they could be making if they were playing, and some started to think that maybe a salary cap wouldn't be a bad idea, if it meant they could get back on the ice and once again earn a paycheck.

While this gradual shift happened too late to save the 2004-2005 season, the owners learned a valuable lesson. The players like a paycheck, and that if you deny it to them, eventually they will want that paycheck bad enough that you can institute your demands.

Fast forward to the end of the 2012 season, and the expiration of the CBA that cost a season to create. The owners want more money, and the players want to keep the money promised to them by the General Managers. Once again, we're in the same situation. The owners could have started negotiating in the offseason, but why? Using the lessons learned from the last lockout they know that all they have to do is wait out the players who will eventually cave, and give them what they want.

This is why we are not playing hockey. Because the owners think that they can squeeze more out of the players if they keep them locked out. That eventually the players will fold and that they can get what they want.

--------------

I guess that's my biggest problem with these whole "negotiations". Negotiations are supposed to be give and take, but what exactly are the owners giving up in all of this? The players went from 57% down to 50%, that is a huge move, and what did they get in return? Shorter contracts, longer cheaper entry level contracts, the elimination of signing bonuses and front loaded contracts, and a longer time before they are free agency eligible.

That's like saying, "I'm going to rob your house, and because I'm taking from you, I'm going to give you the opportunity to have your dog kicked by me on my way out." That is apparently how "give and take" works to some of these owners.

I still want to know what concessions the owners have made in all of this? And no, going from a male bovine excrement number pulled out of a posterior like 43% up to 50% is not a "concession"

Skraut is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:55 AM
  #965
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
I guess that's my biggest problem with these whole "negotiations". Negotiations are supposed to be give and take, but what exactly are the owners giving up in all of this? The players went from 57% down to 50%, that is a huge move, and what did they get in return? Shorter contracts, longer cheaper entry level contracts, the elimination of signing bonuses and front loaded contracts, and a longer time before they are free agency eligible.

That's like saying, "I'm going to rob your house, and because I'm taking from you, I'm going to give you the opportunity to have your dog kicked by me on my way out." That is apparently how "give and take" works to some of these owners.

I still want to know what concessions the owners have made in all of this? And no, going from a male bovine excrement number pulled out of a posterior like 43% up to 50% is not a "concession"
I think that more of this would be true if both sides were starting from a point of equilibrium.

What we see currently are record revenues and record payouts. But it's in a manner like the old joke about statisticians...if they have one leg engulfed in flames and the other encased in ice, they're perfectly comfortable. Three or four teams are making an absolute killing, and a dozen or more are barely scraping by on a year-by-year basis. Everyone else can go either way depending on circumstances.

The basic reasons are twofold:
1) The mechanisms still exist for there to be a two-class system among the teams themselves, and
2) The amount mandated for player salaries is extremely high; in fact, the highest in pro sports

I had this same type of argument with my father-in-law a couple of years ago, as his contract (Ford engine plant) was being negotiated by the UAW. He was in town, so we had him come over for dinner, and shockingly enough, a debate ensues. He basically wanted to know why it is that every time the contract came up, they were being asked to give back more and more. He already knew the answer, which is that conditions both internal and external disrupted what exactly where that equilibrium was. Ford was being hammered, and unfortunately cuts and adjustments have to be made wherever they can be.

The reality with the NHL issues here is that it will have almost no effect on 99% of the players. The average player is a lot closer to Derek MacKenzie than Sidney Crosby; his best hope is a three-year contract, not a twelve-year deal. Signing bonuses affect almost no one, and they've become a tool of vulturing the small markets (just like in the 1990s). Front-loaded contracts affect almost no one. Shorter contract max lengths affect almost no one, and even if the capped idea were shorter than that (say, three years), it would a different story...it would also drive up the rate for players who enter free agency.

It's not a case of "let's screw the players". It's about attempting to form a partnership to not only stabilize the game, but maintain that stability in the coming years.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:13 PM
  #966
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I had this same type of argument with my father-in-law a couple of years ago, as his contract (Ford engine plant) was being negotiated by the UAW. He was in town, so we had him come over for dinner, and shockingly enough, a debate ensues. He basically wanted to know why it is that every time the contract came up, they were being asked to give back more and more. He already knew the answer, which is that conditions both internal and external disrupted what exactly where that equilibrium was. Ford was being hammered, and unfortunately cuts and adjustments have to be made wherever they can be.
Your Father In Law works in a business with competition, a business where the entire industry was losing money. Other companies were producing better cars more cheaply. Customers were not buying cars, or buying cars from other companies if they were.

That relates to hockey how? There is no WHA competing with the NHL providing better hockey entertainment for less money. The league is doing just fine, more than fine actually considering the revenues have tripped since the last lockout. Yes some teams still struggle, but rather than the owners of the wealthy franchises investing in the smaller market to continue to grow the sport as a whole, they demand that relief come from the players, because that will help line their pockets even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The reality with the NHL issues here is that it will have almost no effect on 99% of the players. The average player is a lot closer to Derek MacKenzie than Sidney Crosby; his best hope is a three-year contract, not a twelve-year deal. Signing bonuses affect almost no one, and they've become a tool of vulturing the small markets (just like in the 1990s). Front-loaded contracts affect almost no one. Shorter contract max lengths affect almost no one, and even if the capped idea were shorter than that (say, three years), it would a different story...it would also drive up the rate for players who enter free agency.
Not every benefit has to help every player. But when you ask the players to give up so much, you should be willing to give something back. Not take something additional.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post

It's not a case of "let's screw the players". It's about attempting to form a partnership to not only stabilize the game, but maintain that stability in the coming years.
I see your point. Since the last lockout, and the conditions that were in the most recent CBA, the league's income has increased from $1 billion to $3.2 billion. Clearly the league was doing something wrong. It's a good thing we're having this lockout to bring stability to that rapid growth.

Skraut is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:07 PM
  #967
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I think that more of this would be true if both sides were starting from a point of equilibrium.

What we see currently are record revenues and record payouts. But it's in a manner like the old joke about statisticians...if they have one leg engulfed in flames and the other encased in ice, they're perfectly comfortable. Three or four teams are making an absolute killing, and a dozen or more are barely scraping by on a year-by-year basis. Everyone else can go either way depending on circumstances.

The basic reasons are twofold:
1) The mechanisms still exist for there to be a two-class system among the teams themselves, and
2) The amount mandated for player salaries is extremely high; in fact, the highest in pro sports

I had this same type of argument with my father-in-law a couple of years ago, as his contract (Ford engine plant) was being negotiated by the UAW. He was in town, so we had him come over for dinner, and shockingly enough, a debate ensues. He basically wanted to know why it is that every time the contract came up, they were being asked to give back more and more. He already knew the answer, which is that conditions both internal and external disrupted what exactly where that equilibrium was. Ford was being hammered, and unfortunately cuts and adjustments have to be made wherever they can be.

The reality with the NHL issues here is that it will have almost no effect on 99% of the players. The average player is a lot closer to Derek MacKenzie than Sidney Crosby; his best hope is a three-year contract, not a twelve-year deal. Signing bonuses affect almost no one, and they've become a tool of vulturing the small markets (just like in the 1990s). Front-loaded contracts affect almost no one. Shorter contract max lengths affect almost no one, and even if the capped idea were shorter than that (say, three years), it would a different story...it would also drive up the rate for players who enter free agency.

It's not a case of "let's screw the players". It's about attempting to form a partnership to not only stabilize the game, but maintain that stability in the coming years.
Very well said.

RDriesenUD is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:09 PM
  #968
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
I see your point. Since the last lockout, and the conditions that were in the most recent CBA, the league's income has increased from $1 billion to $3.2 billion. Clearly the league was doing something wrong. It's a good thing we're having this lockout to bring stability to that rapid growth.
The problem is not every team is seeing growth.

RDriesenUD is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:15 PM
  #969
Samkow
Global Moderator
Young Guns
 
Samkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Samkow
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDriesenUD View Post
The problem is not every team is seeing growth.


All but 3 teams are worth more than they were in 2006.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/31/...ions_Rank.html

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations...on:asc_search:

Columbus, Phoenix, and St. Louis.

Why must the NHLPA continue to hinder growth.

Samkow is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:50 PM
  #970
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
Your Father In Law works in a business with competition, a business where the entire industry was losing money. Other companies were producing better cars more cheaply. Customers were not buying cars, or buying cars from other companies if they were.

That relates to hockey how? There is no WHA competing with the NHL providing better hockey entertainment for less money. The league is doing just fine, more than fine actually considering the revenues have tripped since the last lockout. Yes some teams still struggle, but rather than the owners of the wealthy franchises investing in the smaller market to continue to grow the sport as a whole, they demand that relief come from the players, because that will help line their pockets even more.
The NHL is in direct competition. The fact that they're not competing directly with hockey leagues doesn't mean there isn't competition against MLB, NFL, and NBA teams, college football or basketball, or NASCAR, or any of a thousand other ways to spend an evening out on the town.

Quote:
Not every benefit has to help every player. But when you ask the players to give up so much, you should be willing to give something back. Not take something additional.
Shorter contract maxes equals less time to free agency, equals more bidding wars for more players. If the guys who had signed insanely long-term contracts had gone the shorter route and hit UFA status, the Parise and Suter deals would look like nothing by comparison. The fact that several premier players took "retirement deals" isn't the fault of the NHL.

Quote:
I see your point. Since the last lockout, and the conditions that were in the most recent CBA, the league's income has increased from $1 billion to $3.2 billion. Clearly the league was doing something wrong. It's a good thing we're having this lockout to bring stability to that rapid growth.
Not the point at all.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:52 PM
  #971
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samkow View Post


All but 3 teams are worth more than they were in 2006.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/31/...ions_Rank.html

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations...on:asc_search:

Columbus, Phoenix, and St. Louis.

Why must the NHLPA continue to hinder growth.
And in 2007, everyone's houses and farms were worth much more than they had been previously as well. We're not talking about a liquid asset here; we're talking about something that (theoretically) appreciates in value, with the payoff only comes when it sells. In the meantime, it's basically sinking a lot of money into it and hoping for that big payoff down the road.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:49 PM
  #972
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The NHL is in direct competition. The fact that they're not competing directly with hockey leagues doesn't mean there isn't competition against MLB, NFL, and NBA teams, college football or basketball, or NASCAR, or any of a thousand other ways to spend an evening out on the town.
As evidenced by the US national TV deal.

I'm still confused by Skraut's position. Average player salary has increased dramatically. The players get guaranteed contracts. The owners have no recourse if the player under performs. The cap went up dramatically with the increased revenue. It put pressure on the league bottom to spend money they don't have. The big market teams are under pressure to sign the premiere players, their fans demand it. Thus if a loophole exists either they take it or another team does.

I can see no damage that was done to players after the cap was implemented.

The owners should probably figure out how to share revenue better if they want to maintain a 30 team league. Having said that, I'm struggling to figure out how the players are being harmed. If I were them I would concentrate more on player mobility than a few percentage points in league wide revenue.

blahblah is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:51 PM
  #973
JACKETfan
Real Blue Jacketfan
 
JACKETfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Venice
Country: United States
Posts: 9,234
vCash: 500
Good comments Mayor Bee.

Money doesn't equal loyalty in the the NHL.
So are the fans more pure or just more naive?

----
And Skraut, living in Ohio doesn't make someone more vested in the team. Millions of Ohioans don't give a sh:t about the Blue Jackets.

I can tell you however that NOT blowing ticket money on the team made me more cynical about the Crapfest on Ice over the past 3 years. Watched every game from the comfort of my own wallet.

JACKETfan is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 10:47 PM
  #974
Robert
Foligno family
 
Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: KY & Lime Lake NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,355
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Robert
It might be over soon... get out your Mason gear folks...


Last edited by Robert: 12-15-2012 at 10:53 PM.
Robert is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 07:04 AM
  #975
JACKETfan
Real Blue Jacketfan
 
JACKETfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Venice
Country: United States
Posts: 9,234
vCash: 500
The NHLPA's monopoly suit will not solve the problem.

The precedence on sports monopolies is that Congress allows them as a necessary evil. What they never legislated, however, was proper oversight or leverage on them.

A Binding Arbitration Tripwire, for example, makes sense. Of course we're dealing with Congress here, so why would we expect any help from them? How about the Canadian courts?

What a mess.


Last edited by JACKETfan: 12-17-2012 at 07:09 AM.
JACKETfan 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 05:29 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.