I loved the penalty box.. the old owners were good *****, and there was always some good characters in there.. some weird.. some just hilarious. It just needed a new bathroom thats all.
Also.. with what i also heard today was the owners pretty much tabled the same offer as last week and said "take it or leave it".. time to cut the losses and just take it. If they don't this has just turned into an epic pissing contest and the crosby's and other high end talent are pretty much screwing the other talent over whether they think they are or not.
The hard cap was NOT the CBA. I don't care how long your post is (*snicker*).
You said that the NHLPA balked at the last CBA. They did not. They helped write it.
Oh my good lord, semantics. The players balked at the hard cap, it cost us a year of hockey, they ended up having to agree to one anyway and it helped them tremendously. Better?
Players have a tendency to not be able to see for the forest for the trees, and the mean nasty business owners tend to make the better decisions that positively affect the sport.... cause they're mean nasty business owners.
huge difference between the love of our lives and every other sport (I'm assuming you mean the 4 majors in NA) is that every other sport is firmly woven into the fabric of our society as Americans, so they have more goodwill already built in. Matt Kalman said it best a few hours ago when he tweeted that "The NHL has already lost the attention span of the US."
and the league survived after 1994-5 and 2004-5 and will survive again
Matt Kalman should know better- the attention span of Americans is maybe a half hour; if this got settled and games started first week of January there would be minimal dropoff (seemlessglass will have moved on, and a few other posters here will move on until the first Dougie Hamilton goal but really, these comments are hilarious)
I don't see how this lockout will hurt the NHL at all.
If anything, the die hards will be angry.. but they will be back. The casual fan? its not on their radar now, nor has hockey before football ends anyways. If the Bruins are good, the building will be filled. Them sucking is the only thing that will bring fans away.
Plus, am I the only one who is a tiny bit excited about a 44 game season ( 6 vs the division + 2 vs the conference?) that is going to be a heck of a lot of good hockey crammed into 4 months. Habs and Leafs at home 3 times in 4 months... yes please.
I don't see how this lockout will hurt the NHL at all.
If anything, the die hards will be angry.. but they will be back. The casual fan? its not on their radar now, nor has hockey before football ends anyways. If the Bruins are good, the building will be filled. Them sucking is the only thing that will bring fans away.
Plus, am I the only one who is a tiny bit excited about a 44 game season ( 6 vs the division + 2 vs the conference?) that is going to be a heck of a lot of good hockey crammed into 4 months. Habs and Leafs at home 3 times in 4 months... yes please.
It will be a good season with all games being important. That said, this was the year that the Bruins are in CGY and EDM and now who knows when I'll see them here again.
huge difference between the love of our lives and every other sport (I'm assuming you mean the 4 majors in NA) is that every other sport is firmly woven into the fabric of our society as Americans, so they have more goodwill already built in. Matt Kalman said it best a few hours ago when he tweeted that "The NHL has already lost the attention span of the US."
I heard the same BS during the last two lost seasons and you know what happend. They ended up with more fan's then before. Why would it be different this time?
Oh my good lord, semantics. The players balked at the hard cap, it cost us a year of hockey, they ended up having to agree to one anyway and it helped them tremendously. Better?
Players have a tendency to not be able to see for the forest for the trees, and the mean nasty business owners tend to make the better decisions that positively affect the sport.... cause they're mean nasty business owners.
No. Not semantics. What they balked at included no provisions to make the hard cap palatable. What they ended up agreeing to together was a contract with significant give and take from both sides and the idea that everyone would work together for the betterment of the NHL.
Hardly "semantics." It's synecdoche, it's inaccurate and it's unfair.
Your argument of "positively affect the sport" is one that you've used to support the owners this whole time. How about a 35M cap? Would that positively affect the sport? Lots of money for the owners that way... A quick rollback in salaries makes it easy for every team to be profitable, provides an attractive player cost for expansion and still maintains the NHL as the highest-paying league in the sport. Would that be something you'd support?
I don't see how this lockout will hurt the NHL at all.
If anything, the die hards will be angry.. but they will be back. The casual fan? its not on their radar now, nor has hockey before football ends anyways. If the Bruins are good, the building will be filled. Them sucking is the only thing that will bring fans away.
Plus, am I the only one who is a tiny bit excited about a 44 game season ( 6 vs the division + 2 vs the conference?) that is going to be a heck of a lot of good hockey crammed into 4 months. Habs and Leafs at home 3 times in 4 months... yes please.
I would be excited if the season started.
I am not pleased by this whole lockout but I love the B's and NHL and will be there when they return.
I could care less about the "fans" who say we are sheep and should protest by giving up our seats . The only one who would be hurt if I gave up hockey would be me.
No. Not semantics. What they balked at included no provisions to make the hard cap palatable. What they ended up agreeing to together was a contract with significant give and take from both sides and the idea that everyone would work together for the betterment of the NHL.
Hardly "semantics." It's synecdoche, it's inaccurate and it's unfair.
Your argument of "positively affect the sport" is one that you've used to support the owners this whole time. How about a 35M cap? Would that positively affect the sport? Lots of money for the owners that way... A quick rollback in salaries makes it easy for every team to be profitable, provides an attractive player cost for expansion and still maintains the NHL as the highest-paying league in the sport. Would that be something you'd support?
Are you suggesting there were no provisions included by the owners to make the hard cap palatable for the players before the season ended up being cancelled? You do know that it was the league that wanted a salary cap tied to revenues right off the hop right, and that the PA didn't want one at all? This is well documented. The PA rebuked any offer that had a salary cap... period.
The only way the PA would eventually agree to a hard cap (in February at the 11th hour mind you) was if it wasn't tied to revenues and if it was a 52 million hard cap. Owners offered a 40 million hard cap as 52 million would have been nearly 75% of revenues and would have done nothing to solve the issues at the time. Eventually, after a missed year the owners got exactly what they wanted, a salary cap linked to revenues.
You can't rewrite history, the reason a CBA wasn't hashed out and the reason we lost a year of hockey was because the PA was deadset against a salary cap. They stated they would accept no proposal with one in it for the longest time regardless of what other concessions were being made.
As for you scenario outlined at the end there. I could honestly care less what cap figure they arrive at if all the teams are making money and no teams are handicapped by rising player salaries. Would a 35million cap achieve that, of course it would. Would I support the owners going after it? Not at all, because I wouldn't think the owners smart to demand such a thing. We'd lose more then one year of hockey getting players to agree to that and they owners would be easily vilified losing the PA war right off the hop. Kinda irrelevant though as no one is talking about a $35mill a year salary cap, we're talking 50% of 3.3 Billion dollars going to players.
I am curious however as to what you think getting me to say I support that scenario would prove? If there's a more direct question you have to ask shoot, I'll gladly answer. Do I think the players are compensated well enough? I sure do, the worst players in the league make millions over their careers. As long as that remains true I will always think they get paid well enough. Would I support a return to the days of Bobby Orr when players made $50,000 a year? Not a chance, they deserve more. In fact, I'd love to see those retired players that did have such contracts be better compensated through pension (supported by both the PA and league) but neither the league nor the PA seem to care much about that.
I am not pleased by this whole lockout but I love the B's and NHL and will be there when they return.
I could care less about the "fans" who say we are sheep and should protest by giving up our seats . The only one who would be hurt if I gave up hockey would be me.
Pretty powerful statement, well said!
Do I wish that hordes of fans made a public protest; like turning their backs during the first couple minutes of play for every opening night, sitting in complete silence for a full period without moving, tossing pennies onto the ice or whatever people suggested? Yes, I do wish that would happen. But it achieves nothing, other than making me laugh of course.
The only protest that would make a difference is for people to not pay for merch/tickets, but we all know that's just not reasonable
I am not pleased by this whole lockout but I love the B's and NHL and will be there when they return.
I could care less about the "fans" who say we are sheep and should protest by giving up our seats . The only one who would be hurt if I gave up hockey would be me.
The saddest part about this sentence is the fact that it's so true.
I am not pleased by this whole lockout but I love the B's and NHL and will be there when they return.
I could care less about the "fans" who say we are sheep and should protest by giving up our seats . The only one who would be hurt if I gave up hockey would be me.
This is exactly how I feel. I'd love to protest and give up my seat, but in the end, I'm the one who loses. The Bruins will just sell my tickets for more than I'm paying them now if I give them up.
I am not pleased by this whole lockout but I love the B's and NHL and will be there when they return.
I could care less about the "fans" who say we are sheep and should protest by giving up our seats . The only one who would be hurt if I gave up hockey would be me.
Thank you! If you truely love the game you come back.
And as Morris Wanchuk stated ... those 48 games would be much more competitive than those 82.
Hey, for everyone eager to go back and spend your hard earned dollars good for you.
Anyone that calls someone a "sheep" for not having the same priorities is being condescending.
They aren't getting my money and that is a personal decision, but I am actually glad for people that don't feel that way. Good for you and enjoy.
they arent getting a dime from me again if they cancel the season.
if they get their heads out of their ***** and decide to play this season, I'll be going again like nothing ever happened.
The only thing that would keep me away from the NHL is an MLB like issue.
People try to compare what goes on in the NHL with the MLB... but it is nothing close. I cannot imagine the level of anger I would have if I spent time, money, etc. watching 3/4 of a season of hockey, only to have it not end. I would not go back for a long, long time.
But no hockey from the beginning? Meh, I will find ways to entertain myself until the season begins again. Its no money out of my wallet.
The only thing that would keep me away from the NHL is an MLB like issue.
People try to compare what goes on in the NHL with the MLB... but it is nothing close. I cannot imagine the level of anger I would have if I spent time, money, etc. watching 3/4 of a season of hockey, only to have it not end. I would not go back for a long, long time.
But no hockey from the beginning? Meh, I will find ways to entertain myself until the season begins again. Its no money out of my wallet.
This makes a ton of sense.
My issue is that I believe the only reason the owners have no problem with this (and I totally subscribe to the DKH theory that the owners have always known they'd drag this out as long as possible unless they got everything, that's my belief, we don't need to argue it again) is because they absolutely know that people like me will be loyal forever.
They ran their lockout because of my loyalty.
I'm tired of being treated that way. I have no interest in giving them my money for such treatment. It isn't a boycott, it isn't a protest, it is just me deciding to not spend my money on people like that.
Hey, for everyone eager to go back and spend your hard earned dollars good for you.
Anyone that calls someone a "sheep" for not having the same priorities is being condescending.
They aren't getting my money and that is a personal decision, but I am actually glad for people that don't feel that way. Good for you and enjoy.
You know I would enjoy the B's games more with you attending.
BTW They already have my $$$...
I did not mean you by the way (about the "sheep" thing). Mike, you are such a passionate fan and you made the cup win even more delightful when we saw you at the games and from reading your posts on this board. They should feel shame for turning fans like you off from the games.
I find it very sad that these fools did this to the game we all love. They need a good slap. It is so stupid to have waited so long to start working this out. We all know there will be NHL hockey again. It was just foolish to let it come to this...again.
and this is nothing compared to what I just heard about a shooting at a school in Conn. 30 people killed...18 kids...makes me cry. Good Lord.
Players have a tendency to not be able to see for the forest for the trees, and the mean nasty business owners tend to make the better decisions that positively affect the sport.... cause they're mean nasty business owners.
Like the great expansion markets of Florida, Phoenix and Atlanta?
Contraction and relocation should be front and center in this CBA. Further immediate subsidy for weak markets chosen by the supposed great decision makers is being met with resistance and rightfully so.
Like the great expansion markets of Florida, Phoenix and Atlanta?
Contraction and relocation should be front and center in this CBA. Further immediate subsidy for weak markets chosen by the supposed great decision makers is being met with resistance and rightfully so.
Florida was great for NHL in 90's (Really looked promising)
I wouldn't give up on them at this point
Atlanta was worth risk especially since Ted Turner was the primary force behind team being there ,, Him selling Thrashers (And Braves) was bad for hockey in Atlanta. But they had some good years of drawing fans but never could buildup a fanbase
Pho has been mistake ,, But at time it was better then Winnipeg given economy of mid 90's and the fact Winnipeg had no pending arena coming or a ownership group stepping forward
Contraction is a nonstarter ,, First off the NHL would have to pay for franchise and pay any debt related to folding them
Relocation is only real viable but as of now only viable markets are
KC - Great arena (No ownership group though)
Hou - Great Arena but Alexander seemed to give up on getting NHL team after the Oilers were saved and his bid for Houston in expansion was denied
QC - Ownership group ready but no arena yet
Seattle might become viable (As would possibly another Tor team) ,,
Hamilton is a nonstarter for league given its effect on Sabres and the fact its arena is not NHL quality nor does NHL have desire to put team in Hamilton
. The only one who would be hurt if I gave up hockey would be me.
