HFBoards

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

Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 05:46 PM
  #251
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
You need to be two to dance tango... Fehr is using his passive "NO" tactics to its best.

Both guys deserve severe blames. They are killing NHL hockey.
Bettman started from a very stupid position. It was a shot across the bow and a clear signal that he wanted to play hardball. Well, he found somebody who was willing to play hardball right back.

I don't think Fehr is blameless but I blame Bettman more than anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Here's the thing, not every owner is making money, matter of fact, wasn't there 13 teams in the negative last year? And I believe only 13 actually made more than 5M.
Really, the revenue sharing among owners is pretty much the only thing that is saving this league. If rich owners wouldn't be flipping the bill for the poor ones, league would have to downside big time.
And who's fault is that? Why do we have teams in Phoenix to begin with?

And secondly, it's great that we have revenue sharing but it's not enough. The Leafs are making money hand over fist. The league owners should look at each other as partners, if half the league isn't making money then it's not going to make for a very good league.

Like I said, we overexpanded and went to places that didn't make a whole lot of sense and pulled hockey out of places it should've stayed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
As for the stupid contracts, I agree on some level. All it takes is one moron to get the ball rolling, I'm sure you know this. And it's not only the owner's fault. The agents are just as guilty. If one agent convinces his client he deserves 80M, and makes him agree that if he doesn't get that much from his current team, he'll get it from some other, then his current owner/gm is faced with a choice, let him walk or give in. Now, if they agree that the asset is too good to let go, they find a solution as to how to give him that much, and so the front loaded-long term deals were born.
Everybody plays a part in it, not just the owners, not just the agents, but the players as well. In the end, the owners are the ones making the decisions and dishing out the cash, but like I said, it only takes one to get it started, after that you either have to adapt or the players will go elsewhere.
Sure. But there are already controls in place for this. And it sounds like the players were cool going to 50/50 so that limits the contracts they can have.

Despite this though the owners are dumb enough to come up with 30 year contracts. I mean seriously man... Why is this the fault of the players. It certainly isn't collusionary not to sign a 15 year deal with a player and have every other owner not do this.

I'm okay with controls being in place to protect owners from themselves but there's got to be a limit. And this CERTAINLY is not an issue that was worth locking players out over. Yet it's a hill they will die on?

Why?

And hell, the players (amazingly) even agreed to this control. I think they said it was okay for 10 year limits. The league should say okay to this or met in the middle and next time around try to make it shorter. That's how you negotiate.

You don't say "we'll die on the hill unless we get our way" and run home with your bag of marbles. It's assinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
As for the expansion, going to the south was a mistake, and I think he should be fired for it. However, the idea of expanding the league was good. More teams also means more players. But I agree, location, location, location. However, franchises were struggling in Canada at the time as well. The idea was to get the States in every part of it involved in this sport. A good idea, and it might have worked if they did better studies and didn't expand as fast, who knows.
According to Forbes, the NHL should have 20 teams in order to truly be profitable, not 30. That's ten times a 23 men roster, 230 players affected.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...0_team_league/

As much as I think the owners have handled it poorly, and are ridiculous at times, I really don't think the players understand how good they have it.
"Good" is a relative term. A player making 2 mil a year has it good over the average worker but it sucks compared to other pro atheletes. Again, it comes down to a question of who gets what percentage of the pie and I don't think the issues here were worth having this kind of a dispute over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
I keep hearing this and it's crap. Yes it's the owners that sign ridiculous contracts but the teams signing huge contracs taht are frontloaded and have big bonus money up front are not the ones suffering...they can't get together and not offer big contracts as this would be collusion.
The sticking point isn't the dollars... it's the years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Somebody with a baseball avatar should know that MLB was sued and lost big in the 1990's collusion cases.
Apples and oranges. There is a cap in place for a reason. To limit player salary... basically legalized collousion. It's not collusionary for all the owners to realize that 15 year contracts are dumb and not offer them.

It's not like Nik Lidstrom went to a team to try to get a contract only to have the door closed in his face until he gave them a blank check (like what happened with Andre Dawson) this is a completely different story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
In terms of Southern US Expansion, in order to expand the footprint you have to expand geographically. It's easy to say move the southern teams up North but where are they going to play? Hamilton and Quebec are not excatly great markets, Quebec has no rink and a small population(relatively speaking) and Hamilton has a 15k rink and ****** fan support for AHL. Seattle also would need a rink.

If you want big US dollars and a major TV deal you have to be further south than Washington St Louis and Detroit.
By all means expand. But don't expand by 30% into untested markets. That's a recipe for disaster. Bettman overexpanded at a very rapid pace. I mean TWO teams in Florida? Really?

That's just flat out dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Did you miss the part where it was pointed out that revenue sharing IS being increased
Big deal. It's not by nearly enough. Like I said, the Leafs are a cash cow, let them foot the bill ahead of the journeyman hockey player. The players are already giving up an additional 7%. They aren't going to be perpertually making millions as the Leafs are. The revenues should come from the richest teams.

This isn't even a question of fairness, it's a question of practicality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
by a larger margin than the rollback players were asked to take? I take it the answer is "yes", so I hope you read this post.
Nope, didn't miss it. Revenue sharing in the NHL is a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
SOME of the rich owners make money year after year. Some of them LOSE money with their franchises, year after year. That 4th liner is getting very well paid to do his job, he is ot getting slave wages. Since when is getting $550 000 a horrible thing deserving of such sympathy? Let that 4th liner recognize that he needs to be intelligent with his funds in order to be able to set himself up in some other career, or even save enough to cover manageable bills so that he CAN go back to school for some degree that will enable him to live a decent life in the real world. Why is it that there are people on here that think these players do so much that they deserve to make enough money to retire comfortably after a 3-12 year career in their chosen profession?
550k isn't horrible. But again, it's for a limited time for those guys.

The Leafs can print money. They can afford it and not even blink. Hell, I hear Brian Burke lights up tabacco in a 100 dollar bill every time he trades away a first rounder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Stopping "dumb" owners from signing stupid contracts it what this negotiation is all about.
Exactly. Thanks for proving my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Just because a couple of GMs are willig to toss their owners' money around like idiots doesn't mean all of them are that stupid. The problem is with the handful who ARE that stupid. If there is nothing in pace in the CBA to prevent such stupidity, the players can sue the league for collusion if suddenly the agent can not find anyone willing to offer a "fair" contract for that player. We saw what collusion charges did to baseball, the NHL owners do not want that problem, so they want to have a contract limitation added to the CBA to prevent stupid GMs from damaging the league with idiotic contracts like we saw Luongo, Yashin, DiPietro, Kovalchuk et al get.
If the owners are that stupid, there should be consequences for their stupidity. There are already controls in place to limit the damage. At some point the owners should police themselves.

Bottom line there's a cap on how much they can spend. That's about as fair as it gets. Add in some revenue sharing and the system should work.

But it has to be REAL revenue sharing (which it isn't) and the owners can't try to defeat a cap they themselves set in place.

And again the players actually agreed to limits on this issue. It's 10 years, the owners want 5 (or something like that I don't even remember) ... just meet in the middle. That's what a normal negotiator would do.

Instead Bettman gives us the "we'll die on the hill for this" rhetoric.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
The poor franchises ARE getting subsidized by the owners, and are going to be getting more under the new CBA. The players are being asked to split the HRR pie in a fair 50/50 split to ALSO help those weaker teams since it benefits the players to not have contraction just as much as it benefits the owners.

The cap that was "rammed" down the players' throat has been so devastating that the players' salaries have increased 63.5% over the duration of the last CBA! Man, it must suck to see salaries raise by such a minimal amount...The owners DID get some of wha what they wanted last time, but it is quite clear that they truly believe they are entitled to make 50% of the HRR in the very business that they pay every single related cost in. They each bring as much value to the game as the players, albeit in a different manner, and should be able to get an equal share of the HRR. That is why they are complaining. Heck, the richer owners actually get less than the share they deserve because they have revenue sharing. I don't see Ovechkin sharing his salary with that poor 4th liner who isn't going to make enough to retire. Should the owners ask the players to engage in some revenue sharing so that the poor 4th liner can have an easier opportunity to retire when he can no longer play?
This is the same salary cap that the league sacrificed a season over last time. And the players with not a whole lot of resistance actually came down to the 50/50 mark. I don't think anyone disagrees a whole lot with this.

If they weren't going for this you might have a point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Bettman started nogotiations with the same "insulting" offer that the owners have been living under for 7 years believing the players would make a counter offer. That is what you do in negotiations. The players actually refused to even make a counter offer to the original proposal. THAT is why we are where we are. Heck, even the last offer from the owners to the players seemed to be one that the players were interested in until Fehr came along and said "no" without even bringing the offer to the union to vote on. THAT is why we are where we are.
It was a dumb offer. Everyone knew it was a hard ass offer and that's why we are where we are now. When you start with that kind of a gulf, it's harder to bridge the gap. Moreover, the people across the table from you become more skeptical and they start hardening their positions.

Starting from a crazy position is a great strategy... if you like work stoppages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It IS ridiculous that we are in this situation---AGAIN. It might have been far better for the players to start negotiating with the NHL las year like the owners wanted to do, rather than choosing to wait until this summer to "begin" negotiations.
The fact that there was a shorter period of time to work with (assuming you're right) makes Bettman's initial offer all the more ridiculous.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:21 PM
  #252
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,558
vCash: 500
The current status is the following:

1) The owners want 5-year contract limits, the players want 10-year contract limits.
2) The owners want a 75% make-whole, and the players want a 100% make-whole, a difference of 100 million, or roughly 0.4% of total league revenue over the lifetime of the next CBA.
3) The owners want an 8-year deal, the players want a 6+2 deal.

It will be pretty lame of Bettman/Jacobs if they cancel the season over this. It's time for them to offer an olive branch.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:48 PM
  #253
Habsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kingston, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
NHLPA


Last edited by Habsman: 12-13-2012 at 07:23 PM. Reason: di
Habsman is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 07:54 PM
  #254
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Yes, but what matters here is cash, don't focus on the numbers that matter less.

The owners are proposing a 230 million annual decrease in player salaries, and a 33 million dollar increase in revenue sharing. Those are the relevant numbers.

That shows that the revenue sharing offer by the owners is insubstantial.
"Relevant" numbers without context are meaningless.

None of us here can even imagine $15 million, forget about "sharing" it.

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:01 PM
  #255
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The current status is the following:

1) The owners want 5-year contract limits, the players want 10-year contract limits.
2) The owners want a 75% make-whole, and the players want a 100% make-whole, a difference of 100 million, or roughly 0.4% of total league revenue over the lifetime of the next CBA.
3) The owners want an 8-year deal, the players want a 6+2 deal.

It will be pretty lame of Bettman/Jacobs if they cancel the season over this. It's time for them to offer an olive branch.
It seems mind boggling that the two sides can't bridge the gap. I would blame both sides equally.

These last four months of negotiations could have happened a year ago.

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:07 PM
  #256
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
"Relevant" numbers without context are meaningless.

None of us here can even imagine $15 million, forget about "sharing" it.
I agree, but we know what the context is.

Approximately 3.3 billion dollars in total annual revenue league-wide, with 140 million in total profits that is not evenly distributed. Median profit per team is 3 million per year, but 13 of 30 teams are unprofitable.

The owners want increased profits, so they have asked and received 230 million dollars in annual concessions from the players, a number that scales with league revenue. That is 7% of league revenue, it's substantial.

They're also offering 40 million in increased revenue sharing, this number does not scale with league revenue, and is equal to ~1% of total NHL revenue.

[I think I said 33 million before, that was a mistake, it's 40 million].

I personally am for expansion of the game and would be excited to see a 36-team league. The biggest winners if that ends up happening are the existing owners, they would make money from expansion fees, from the increased national TV deal, and from the lower salary cap that would result. I just don't see why the players should finance every cent or even 85% of said expansion. I support the underlying Bettman of penetrating the American consciousness, even if I disagree on some details.

I'm for concessions from the players. The NHLPA has endorsed concessions of 230 million/year. The NHL owners should in turn make their own concessions. If they put more money into revenue sharing, they'll come out ahead in the long-term.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:11 PM
  #257
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Yes, but what matters here is cash, don't focus on the numbers that matter less.

The owners are proposing a 230 million annual decrease in player salaries, and a 33 million dollar increase in revenue sharing. Those are the relevant numbers.

That shows that the revenue sharing offer by the owners is insubstantial.
Ah. So, when the percentages favour your argument, you use them. When they don't, you want to ignore them. Very interesting style of debate. Aren't you the one who keeps pointing out that there are far more players than owners? That 230 million becomes about a $328 000 "loss" per player. The 33 million is a significantly higher percentage of loss per owner, about 3 times the loss to be sustained per player. Yet, you still feel it is not the owners losing anything here? Interesting...

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:18 PM
  #258
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Ah. So, when the percentages favour your argument, you use them. When they don't, you want to ignore them. Very interesting style of debate. Aren't you the one who keeps pointing out that there are far more players than owners? That 230 million becomes about a $328 000 "loss" per player. The 33 million is a significantly higher percentage of loss per owner, about 3 times the loss to be sustained per player. Yet, you still feel it is not the owners losing anything here? Interesting...
My argument works with both numbers and percentages.

The players are giving up ~230 million/year, and the owners are transferring 40 million/year.

If you want to go by percentages, the player concession is ~7% of league revenue or ~13% of the players' share, and the owner concession is ~1% of league revenue or ~2% of the owners' share.

There is no loss from the owners. If Jeremy Jacobs pays out 10 million dollars less in salaries and pays out 4 million dollars more in revenue sharing then he is losing nothing. He is gaining 6 million/year. That's right -- he's not losing anything whatsoever.

As an aside, you argue that the players should take losses as they're already well-paid, will still be well-paid, and it's in the long-term interests of the game. Do you also think that the owners of the six or seven most profitable franchises (NYR, TML, Habs, Flyers, Canucks, Oilers, Bruins) should be willing to take somewhat smaller profits in the short-term as well, or do you think that only players should take losses?

IMO, it would be good for the game if Toronto, etc saw a small decrease in profits, with the money used to invest in the league. It would also be good for labor relations.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:20 PM
  #259
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Ah. So, when the percentages favour your argument, you use them. When they don't, you want to ignore them. Very interesting style of debate. Aren't you the one who keeps pointing out that there are far more players than owners? That 230 million becomes about a $328 000 "loss" per player. The 33 million is a significantly higher percentage of loss per owner, about 3 times the loss to be sustained per player. Yet, you still feel it is not the owners losing anything here? Interesting...
losing what ? arent they saving $ in all the proposals so far (by either side)...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:37 PM
  #260
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
there's part of the equation you're missing...

no one is saying people who study arent putting as much effort as those who study and do sports.

the equation is pretty simple actually, aside from the fact they're on the bus instead of a plane, Jr hockey players play/practice at pretty much the same pace as AHLers and NHLers do (70+ games schedules)...

sure they can give all they got when it comes to going to classes and studying, but it's 100% of what's left, so to speak and study+sport sure isnt the same as study+free time, come on now...

the kid who has to travel from Sherbrooke to Rouin Noranda, or Terre Neuve to Gatineau, for games will not have as much free time to study, neither will he have the same energy to put in to his homeworks.

And even if you were training at a very high level, you can't compare your situation with those of Junior players... I mean, what is it in Karate ? provincials once a year, National once a year, PanAm once a year (assuming you're good enough to go), one competition a year within your organisation (if you were in the SKI, JKA or something) and maybe one or two more troughout the year... and you want to compare that to a sport that start/ends at the same time as CEGEP and Universities do ? to kids who have to travel from Boisbriand to PEI, from Rimouski to Gatineau, from Rouin to Sherbrooke on a somewhat regular basis ? to kids who have to play 2 or 3 (and sometimes maybe 4) games a week on top of practices ?

reality, you were attending Karate "classes" 2 or 3 times a week, maybe 4, 2H classes top. Maybe used some of your "free time" to train some more (key word : FREE time).

And there's a reason you could get good grades while you were also training. A simple one. in LOTS of other sports (even at a high level) you will have much more free time to do whatever you feel like, Karate included (really, try me, how many competitions a year you were doing ?).

Get some perspective.
How did you miss the point again even after I bold and underlined it?!?!?!? I clearly stated that there are people who choose to go to university who work as hard as guys who choose to try and get into professional sports. I said the type of work is different but how hard they work is the same.

All I am saying is that other people who go to university work as hard as hockey players and if they fail in their chosen profession they are in the same boat as any hockey player is in if he fails at his chosen profession. As such, the "risks" associated with becoming a hockey player are not that special and not equivalent to the financial risk an NHL owner takes when running and paying for an NHL team. Surely to goodness you can start to understand the point I have been making over and over and over by now???

This wasn't supposed to be about me, but I actually trained 2 hours every day throughout the 7 years I did university full time while working 1-3 part time jobs. By the way, I do not do "Karate", I do Kung Fu (there is a huge difference). I averaged 4 hours of sleep per night throughout that time with the occasional (once every 2nd or 3rd week, depending) Saturday crash of 7-9 hours of sleep. Believe me, I have been working hard since I was 15 years old. I know all about sacrifice and hard work. I am actually quite proud of the hard work I have done, and continue to do, throughout my life.

Hockey players work tremendously to try and make the NHL. So do many other people on this planet. Please, please tell me you get the point THIS TIME!

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:45 PM
  #261
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Like I said, we overexpanded and went to places that didn't make a whole lot of sense and pulled hockey out of places it should've stayed..
Winnipeg and QC were not viable to stay in there cities

Cnd dollar was in gutter , Neither city had plans for new stadiums , Neither had local ownership groups step up to save franchises

Lets not forget the NHL had to rescue Edmonton , Calgary and Ottawa as well to save those cities from losing there teams


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
By all means expand. But don't expand by 30% into untested markets. That's a recipe for disaster. Bettman overexpanded at a very rapid pace. I mean TWO teams in Florida? Really?
.
Bettman had nothing to do with either Florida expansion (Nor the Ducks , Or Stars relocation)

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:46 PM
  #262
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
My argument works with both numbers and percentages.

The players are giving up ~230 million/year, and the owners are transferring 40 million/year.

If you want to go by percentages, the player concession is ~7% of league revenue or ~13% of the players' share, and the owner concession is ~1% of league revenue or ~2% of the owners' share.

There is no loss from the owners. If Jeremy Jacobs pays out 10 million dollars less in salaries and pays out 4 million dollars more in revenue sharing then he is losing nothing. He is gaining 6 million/year. That's right -- he's not losing anything whatsoever.

As an aside, you argue that the players should take losses as they're already well-paid, will still be well-paid, and it's in the long-term interests of the game. Do you also think that the owners of the six or seven most profitable franchises (NYR, TML, Habs, Flyers, Canucks, Oilers, Bruins) should be willing to take somewhat smaller profits in the short-term as well, or do you think that only players should take losses?

IMO, it would be good for the game if Toronto, etc saw a small decrease in profits, with the money used to invest in the league. It would also be good for labor relations.
Listen, one thing we do agree on is that there should be better revenue sharing. I have said that in previous posts. I just think the make whole crap is just crap. Both sides knew what they were doing when signing long term inflated contracts. BOTH sides. Do you really think the agents weren't trying to squeeze extra out of the owners without knowing that a rollback would be part of the negotiations? Please, agents are NOT stupid. Everyone who watched the last lockout knew that rollbacks were going to be asked for.

I do wish there would be more revenue sharing. I hope it happens. I also think the players are being foolish by not signing the latest offer. Very simple.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:01 PM
  #263
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Winnipeg and QC were not viable to stay in there cities

Cnd dollar was in gutter , Neither city had plans for new stadiums , Neither had local ownership groups step up to save franchises

Lets not forget the NHL had to rescue Edmonton , Calgary and Ottawa as well to save those cities from losing there teams.
Didn't you know? Canadians love to conveniently ignore when pretty much all Canadian teams were in the gutter.

Even teams like Vancouver and Montreal were barely making money.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:13 PM
  #264
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Winnipeg and QC were not viable to stay in there cities

Cnd dollar was in gutter , Neither city had plans for new stadiums , Neither had local ownership groups step up to save franchises

Lets not forget the NHL had to rescue Edmonton , Calgary and Ottawa as well to save those cities from losing there teams

Bettman had nothing to do with either Florida expansion (Nor the Ducks , Or Stars relocation)
The difference between a city like Chicago and Winnipeg is that a city like Chicago can be run into the ground for a decade or two and there is no permanent damage but one bad decision by Winnipeg and they couldn't recover.

The owners of the Jets convinced the taxpayers and the city to upgrade the old arena by adding a nose-bleed section at considerable cost and it was a complete dud, no one ever sat in it and then a few years later they told the city either build us a new arena or we're gone. Upgrading the old arena upset enough people that they couldn't get enough people to support a new arena and that was it for the Jets. There was enough money and support for a new arena but there wasn't enough support for an upgraded old arena and then a new arena.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:22 PM
  #265
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Winnipeg and QC were not viable to stay in there cities

Cnd dollar was in gutter , Neither city had plans for new stadiums , Neither had local ownership groups step up to save franchises

Lets not forget the NHL had to rescue Edmonton , Calgary and Ottawa as well to save those cities from losing there teams
I didn't get the sense that the league did everything they could to save those teams the way we've seen them step up for clubs like Pittsburgh and Phoenix. Did you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Bettman had nothing to do with either Florida expansion (Nor the Ducks , Or Stars relocation)
I'll take your word for it without looking it up. Still, why expand further esp when you already have teams that are struggling? Why not wait until those two Florida franchises do anything before expanding?

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:24 PM
  #266
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
How did you miss the point again even after I bold and underlined it?!?!?!? I clearly stated that there are people who choose to go to university who work as hard as guys who choose to try and get into professional sports. I said the type of work is different but how hard they work is the same.

All I am saying is that other people who go to university work as hard as hockey players and if they fail in their chosen profession they are in the same boat as any hockey player is in if he fails at his chosen profession. As such, the "risks" associated with becoming a hockey player are not that special and not equivalent to the financial risk an NHL owner takes when running and paying for an NHL team. Surely to goodness you can start to understand the point I have been making over and over and over by now???

This wasn't supposed to be about me, but I actually trained 2 hours every day throughout the 7 years I did university full time while working 1-3 part time jobs. By the way, I do not do "Karate", I do Kung Fu (there is a huge difference). I averaged 4 hours of sleep per night throughout that time with the occasional (once every 2nd or 3rd week, depending) Saturday crash of 7-9 hours of sleep. Believe me, I have been working hard since I was 15 years old. I know all about sacrifice and hard work. I am actually quite proud of the hard work I have done, and continue to do, throughout my life.

Hockey players work tremendously to try and make the NHL. So do many other people on this planet. Please, please tell me you get the point THIS TIME!
clearly you just dont want to get it. kids who try to reach the NHL (or other pro sport) dont chose the sport over school. NO. they do the sport, in this case hockey, WHILE GOING TO SCHOOL. they're not doing one of the two, they're doing BOTH, they go to school AND play sport...


following YOUR logic, there's nothing to be proud of, you werent working any harder than anyone who was going to school only, that's nothing uncommon or special... right ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:48 PM
  #267
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'll take your word for it without looking it up. Still, why expand further esp when you already have teams that are struggling? Why not wait until those two Florida franchises do anything before expanding?
In 90's the Panthers actually were fairly solid as far as attendance (And TB has always had a strong diehard fanbase)

When NHL expanded in late 90's to Atl/Nas the league was in much better shape economically (As were those regions)

Dallas lets not forget was one of the NHL's premier franchises both on ice and at gate in late 90's/early 00's

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:58 PM
  #268
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
In 90's the Panthers actually were fairly solid as far as attendance (And TB has always had a strong diehard fanbase)

When NHL expanded in late 90's to Atl/Nas the league was in much better shape economically (As were those regions)

Dallas lets not forget was one of the NHL's premier franchises both on ice and at gate in late 90's/early 00's
Well, if there's no attendance problems then what the heck does the league need more revenues for then?

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:00 PM
  #269
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
clearly you just dont want to get it. kids who try to reach the NHL (or other pro sport) dont chose the sport over school. NO. they do the sport, in this case hockey, WHILE GOING TO SCHOOL. they're not doing one of the two, they're doing BOTH, they go to school AND play sport...


following YOUR logic, there's nothing to be proud of, you werent working any harder than anyone who was going to school only, that's nothing uncommon or special... right ?
Do you read the posts of the people you try to support when arguing? The people arguing that players take "risks" are all saying that the players give up getting an education in order to focus on hockey. That is the side you have been blindly fighting for! Please go back and re-read the posts on this topic and try to figure out where you stand. Lol, you might actually be on my side...

You also completely missed my point about why I am proud of my accomplishments: doing hard work, which, if you paid attention, I did say many people do, NOT just me. I do NOT think I am "special", just an ordinary man. That does not mean I can not be proud of my accomplishments.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:06 PM
  #270
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Well, if there's no attendance problems then what the heck does the league need more revenues for then?
Did you miss the 90s/00s part of what you are laughing at? You do know we are not in the 90s anymore, right?

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:24 PM
  #271
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Do you read the posts of the people you try to support when arguing? The people arguing that players take "risks" are all saying that the players give up getting an education in order to focus on hockey. That is the side you have been blindly fighting for! Please go back and re-read the posts on this topic and try to figure out where you stand. Lol, you might actually be on my side...

You also completely missed my point about why I am proud of my accomplishments: doing hard work, which, if you paid attention, I did say many people do, NOT just me. I do NOT think I am "special", just an ordinary man. That does not mean I can not be proud of my accomplishments.
Are you telling me it isnt true, that they dont have to sacrifice school when playing 70+ games in the Q while riding the bus countless hours per months in a season that goes from September to April (and maybe more with PO and Mem. Cup) ?

I suggest you re-read what you type before submitting your posts. You're proud of your hard work and all but when it comes to hockey players who both play and go to school, you act as if it's something common, as if everybody was doing something similar...

Doing what MANY can do is not an accomplishment.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:49 AM
  #272
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
How did you miss the point again even after I bold and underlined it?!?!?!? I clearly stated that there are people who choose to go to university who work as hard as guys who choose to try and get into professional sports. I said the type of work is different but how hard they work is the same.

All I am saying is that other people who go to university work as hard as hockey players and if they fail in their chosen profession they are in the same boat as any hockey player is in if he fails at his chosen profession. As such, the "risks" associated with becoming a hockey player are not that special and not equivalent to the financial risk an NHL owner takes when running and paying for an NHL team. Surely to goodness you can start to understand the point I have been making over and over and over by now???

This wasn't supposed to be about me, but I actually trained 2 hours every day throughout the 7 years I did university full time while working 1-3 part time jobs. By the way, I do not do "Karate", I do Kung Fu (there is a huge difference). I averaged 4 hours of sleep per night throughout that time with the occasional (once every 2nd or 3rd week, depending) Saturday crash of 7-9 hours of sleep. Believe me, I have been working hard since I was 15 years old. I know all about sacrifice and hard work. I am actually quite proud of the hard work I have done, and continue to do, throughout my life.

Hockey players work tremendously to try and make the NHL. So do many other people on this planet. Please, please tell me you get the point THIS TIME!
While I agree with you that for every profession and professional sport it requires a lot of hard work. However quantifying the meaning of hard work is not going to be something that can be truly understood mutually from person to person since hard work is only really defined by your personal experiences. While a comprehension of the required steps to get to a certain level can be mutually agreed upon the perspective of how much hard work is required to achieve a certain level will be dependent on the person you're talking to.

What I think is being confused in all this though is that regardless of the fact that it takes a lot of hard work to get to the NHL level or professional sports level or professional academic career level, I want to say that the perception of it requiring more work to achieve the level of being an NHLer or other professional sport is by virtue of the very small amount of available "jobs" in that field. So even though to become an engineer, doctor, actor or whatever requires maybe the same if not more work to achieve, the relative abundance of available positions in those fields in comparison to those available for hockey is immensely larger. So of course that means that if you do land a job in that industry (hockey) it is handsomely paid due to the rarity of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Are you telling me it isnt true, that they dont have to sacrifice school when playing 70+ games in the Q while riding the bus countless hours per months in a season that goes from September to April (and maybe more with PO and Mem. Cup) ?

I suggest you re-read what you type before submitting your posts. You're proud of your hard work and all but when it comes to hockey players who both play and go to school, you act as if it's something common, as if everybody was doing something similar...

Doing what MANY can do is not an accomplishment.
However, this argument I think has a lot of merit in the belief that if a young kid chooses to try and make it as an NHL player they forego school by virtue of the fact that hockey takes up a whole bunch of time. This does NOT exclude the players that do BOTH and succeed at BOTH, but I think more often than not the person chooses success in one or the other. I don't think it is unfair to say that if the hockey career fails that the now student is set back maybe up to 5 years, again depending on how far along he's gone. However I also don't think that excludes that student from being successful in whatever field he may want to go in, but it probably leaves that kid in a bit of a funk for some time.

I mean imagine the circumstance, imagine you've made a conscious decision to try and pursue playing in the NHL and then realizing you are not able to go where you want to go. I can only imagine that it takes some time to come to grips with that realization, and then it probably takes some more time to figure out what it is you're going to do next. This does not mean that it is a scenario for failure, but I think that catch up is often required.

This is just my 2 cents. The real thing I'm saying here is that hard work and training and doing school at the same time is not impossible, but I think that at some point there is a choice to be made. When that choice is made, the priorities shift to achieving the choose goal which much more often than not means neglecting one or the other, maybe not entirely but enough that if the goal you aimed for fails the other one will require some catch up. I also want to maybe try and bring to light a perspective on a potential false perspective of greater work required to do one profession over another.

Reiher is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:15 AM
  #273
DJ Breadman
Registered User
 
DJ Breadman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newfoundland
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Winnipeg and QC were not viable to stay in there cities

Cnd dollar was in gutter , Neither city had plans for new stadiums , Neither had local ownership groups step up to save franchises

Lets not forget the NHL had to rescue Edmonton , Calgary and Ottawa as well to save those cities from losing there teams




Bettman had nothing to do with either Florida expansion (Nor the Ducks , Or Stars relocation)

Bruce Mcnall was responsible for the ducks and possibly stars and fla, he was the head of the board of governors the same position Jacobs has now, he was on Primtime sports the other day, pretty interesting convo. He hired Buttman and told the guys he was his 3rd choice. He wanted someone with experience not just some lawyer fresh out of school so he went to the NBA and talked to David Stern he first offered Stern the job but he turned it down, then he wanted Sterns 2nd in command but Stern said no and then suggest his 3rd in command Buttman

DJ Breadman is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:27 AM
  #274
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,558
vCash: 500
The Dallas Stars are not a southern failure. Their valuation is 240 million dollars and they bring in a positive operating income of 3 million dollars annually. Their total revenue is 100 million per year, which is middle tier for the league, and they do this without any playoff revenue.

From the numbers, their payroll was 49 million last year (3rd lowest in the NHL), they had 100 million in revenue, and their profit was 3 million dollars... where did the other 48 million dollars go? It doesn't sound like a high player salaries problem. It doesn't sound like a lack of fans in the deep south problem. It sounds like a management problem to me.

It could be that the owner borrowed money, using the team as collateral, and now he can't cover the interest so he slashes the payroll instead. I notice that they have the 6th highest debt level in the NHL.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:35 AM
  #275
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The Dallas Stars are not a southern failure. Their valuation is 240 million dollars and they bring in a positive operating income of 3 million dollars annually. Their total revenue is 100 million per year, which is middle tier for the league, and they do this without any playoff revenue.

From the numbers, their payroll was 49 million last year (3rd lowest in the NHL), they had 100 million in revenue, and their profit was 3 million dollars... where did the other 48 million dollars go? It doesn't sound like a high player salaries problem. It doesn't sound like a lack of fans in the deep south problem. It sounds like a management problem to me.

It could be that the owner borrowed money, using the team as collateral, and now he can't cover the interest so he slashes the payroll instead. I notice that they have the 6th highest debt level in the NHL.
Not as simple as revenues - players salaries = profits. there's other operating costs.

ECWHSWI 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 01:28 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.