i don't want a short term, one injection of cash type of fix. that's my problem with their "solution." i want true revenue sharing, long term, fix the problem, no more lockouts.
the link to the NBA story shows a league that was determined to address the same problems the NHL seems incapable or unwilling to fully address. this, necessarily, has to come from the owners. they need to step up and take care of this issue. this is the leadership that is needed and that Jacobs does not supply. this would be the selfless response to a league problem that he claimed his support of the lockout was.
would that this issue were a dead horse. but it's not. the long term problems remain. and the Bruins owner is the one who brought up the subject and tried to spin his role as some selfless act for the benefit of the league.
Until last year the NBA's revenue sharing pool equated to roughly 60 million. They increased the pool to 200 million this year. Did the NHL not do the exact same thing? Sorry, you keep bringing up the NBA but I'm not sure why. Both leagues share the exact same amount, and the NHL brings in less revenue. The NHL is already doing more then the NBA in regards to revenue sharing. And while on the subject of comparing the NHL to other leagues why, when every other professional sports league on the continent has at best a 50/50 player owner split of revenues, do you think NHL players deserve more?
Once you move on from revenue sharing as an option to fix it all you're in a predicament. You now have two obvious choices, contract (neither players nor owners want this) or move teams to more viable markets. Pull them out of the markets that don't support them in the states and place them in places like Quebec, Hamilton, Seattle, etc... To do that however you'd have to abandon the good growth you've already fostered in the southern states (and there are plenty of numbers available that prove hockey is succeeding in these non-traditional markets even if the NHL team isn't yet), and abandon the rich untapped markets that those cities hold also abandoning the more lucrative broadcast deals, commercial revenues, and merchandising. You'd essentially have to accept that the NHL is what it is and that it will never be more. I doubt players or owners want that.
Canada is for lack of a better word, tapped. You aren't growing the sport much more here then it has already grown. You'll see short term gains if you moved say Phoenix to Hamilton in things like ticket sales, but that would be it. Eventually it would stagnate, it would decline in popularity in the US and truly become the ugly duckling of professional sports in NA far more so then it already is. Not to mention your pinning your hopes and dreams on the Canadian economy.
Of course there's also a third option, cut down on expenses so that teams that make less money can afford to keep up with the higher revenue teams like Toronto. Players are obviously deadset against this method as they are easily the largest expense every NHL team pays out, but it's rather interesting so many fans also are. I assume because they don't want to see those rich owners continue to get richer. I just don't understand why? I could care less if Jacobs or Bell/Rogers rake in additional monies off the sport if it means you'll get competitive hockey in places like Phoenix and Tampa. Do people think these guys aren't getting richer regardless from their other ventures? The NHL is hardly a drop in the bucket for any of them comparatively.
Until last year the NBA's revenue sharing pool equated to roughly 60 million. They increased the pool to 200 million this year. Did the NHL not do the exact same thing? Sorry, you keep bringing up the NBA but I'm not sure why. Both leagues share the exact same amount, and the NHL brings in less revenue. The NHL is already doing more then the NBA in regards to revenue sharing. And while on the subject of comparing the NHL to other leagues why, when every other professional sports league on the continent has at best a 50/50 player owner split of revenues, do you think NHL players deserve more?
Once you move on from revenue sharing as an option to fix it all you're in a predicament. You now have two obvious choices, contract (neither players nor owners want this) or move teams to more viable markets. Pull them out of the markets that don't support them in the states and place them in places like Quebec, Hamilton, Seattle, etc... To do that however you'd have to abandon the good growth you've already fostered in the southern states (and there are plenty of numbers available that prove hockey is succeeding in these non-traditional markets even if the NHL team isn't yet), and abandon the rich untapped markets that those cities hold also abandoning the more lucrative broadcast deals, commercial revenues, and merchandising. You'd essentially have to accept that the NHL is what it is and that it will never be more. I doubt players or owners want that.
Canada is for lack of a better word, tapped. You aren't growing the sport much more here then it has already grown. You'll see short term gains if you moved say Phoenix to Hamilton in things like ticket sales, but that would be it. Eventually it would stagnate, it would decline in popularity in the US and truly become the ugly duckling of professional sports in NA far more so then it already is. Not to mention your pinning your hopes and dreams on the Canadian economy.
Of course there's also a third option, cut down on expenses so that teams that make less money can afford to keep up with the higher revenue teams like Toronto. Players are obviously deadset against this method as they are easily the largest expense every NHL team pays out, but it's rather interesting so many fans also are. I assume because they don't want to see those rich owners continue to get richer. I just don't understand why? I could care less if Jacobs or Bell/Rogers rake in additional monies off the sport if it means you'll get competitive hockey in places like Phoenix and Tampa. Do people think these guys aren't getting richer regardless from their other ventures? The NHL is hardly a drop in the bucket for any of them comparatively.
thats what drives me nuts Kaoz. I only care about getting the sport in a better place for the long term not which side gets more money. But from the very highest level view. The people that need to make more money for the sport to be healty is the owners NOT the players. again highest level veiw which a lot of the time is the only one that matters.
Bottom line is owners don't make money or at least break even then the health of the NHL is what is going to hurt. Players make a little less health of the NHL does not suffer at all.
I get the argument for not tipping the people there for the same reason you don't tip at McDonald's.
Makes total sense.
I don't get the argument that because the product is crappy and expensive you don't tip.
Faulty logic.
I say faulty logic is asking the common person to tip more to keep concessionaires afloat when the only reason they suffered any financial setback was because their millionaire bosses fought over their millions.
People have differing opinions on tipping, and we all know there's no set definition. But it seems reasonable to me that a person would have a hard time tipping for a lousy product at a ridiculous price, particularly when the effort to dispense said product is even less at said location that at any other place. I think people note a difference between standing in one spot feeding cups below the same tap to an orderly line of people and managing a bar that offers dozens of drink options and has a clientele ordering from all different locations. Quite simply...the two jobs are so unrelated as to be completely different. So if some people, and again I don't happen to be one, choose not to tip, I totally understand why. The guys at the Garden dispensing beer are not bartenders. Not even close.
You don't have to tip if you don't want to tip. That's not how I roll, but if you feel that strongly about keeping that extra dollar in your pocket, well, I hope you enjoy whatever you buy with it.
It's just a really funny response to me to a well-intentioned comment...especially given all of the hand-wringing about how it was the arena workers and area businesses that really "paid for" the lockout. Those workers, for the past 2 games, have been dealing with an absolute mob scene from puck drop to the final horn thanks to those vouchers. Patrons have been rude. Patrons have been demanding. Patrons who may otherwise tip aren't, because they're collecting free food. I've witnessed it firsthand during both games.
Those guys/gals are busting their ***** with less to show for it than normal. Is that my fault? No. Are you or I obligated to make them whole by leaving a tip? No. Is it wrong to point out for folks here who may not have witnessed it first hand? Not at all.
I tend to overtip, not everyone feels that way and I get it. You certainly aren't required to, but I'm surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) at the level of pushback that a well-intentioned comment/suggestion is receiving.
I think that if you've worked at a crap job like food service or pizza delivery before then you are forever going to tip more because you can feel for the people who are serving you. I delivered pizza for a while in undergrad and I am constantly tipping more than my fiance. It's amazing though because you'd think that those with more would be better tippers, but it's not always the case.
So I understand this correctly...it's not enough for owners and players to ask fans to come back to arenas to ensure they continue making millions, but fans are also supposed to help cover the losses of these millionaires' employees???
In what bizarro world does that seem remotely appropriate?
the world where people see what i typed and assume the issue is with tipping and not with the present state of capitalism
