HFBoards

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

Just Wondering...what side are Philly Fans on?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2004, 08:21 PM
  #1
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,305
vCash: 500
Just Wondering...what side are Philly Fans on?

Im guessing most Philly fans are on the Players side..but I dont know for sure. I know Ranger fans favor the players...what side are you guys on??(Majority)

BTW..im not asking for reasons why or why not unless you wanna give a little setence...the big arguments are in the buisness section.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 08:31 PM
  #2
goodrev
Registered User
 
goodrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 367
vCash: 500
owners side... i see the league in a state where a salary cap is absolutely necessary, is it the owners fault yes, but they are taking the right course of action and demanding a salary cap

goodrev is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 08:34 PM
  #3
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Players. I believe in the free market, and it would be true no matter how much money my hockey team has.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 09:06 PM
  #4
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,950
vCash: 625
What side is there to take? A bunch of people arguing over where $2.1 billion dollars go. I take my own side, and so should everyone else.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 09:47 PM
  #5
Mongoose
Registered User
 
Mongoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 130
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Mongoose
I take whichever side that will bring hockey back to this country.

Mongoose is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 09:50 PM
  #6
Toonces
The beer kitty
 
Toonces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,679
vCash: 500
Neither, I'm very resentful of both sides...

Get a deal done and get on with the season.

Toonces is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 10:41 PM
  #7
RoDu
Registered User
 
RoDu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,606
vCash: 500
I don't hate either the owners or the players, but Bettman I despise
I'm for the salary cap, but the owners are just being to thick headed right now

RoDu is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 10:43 PM
  #8
flyersrock1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 609
vCash: 500
The Fans. Only side that seems to be thinking straight.

flyersrock1 is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 11:29 PM
  #9
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
I lean owners, but believe both sides are the "bad" guys.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 01:35 AM
  #10
DeleteThisAccount
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: And eating brains
Country: United States
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
I'm on the AHL's side right now

DeleteThisAccount is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 08:30 AM
  #11
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
I'm on the side that IMO has been most reasonable about getting a deal done so we can see the NHL again. IMO the players have been far more giving and flexible, so at the moment I'm on their side.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:05 AM
  #12
Teezax
Registered User
 
Teezax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,450
vCash: 500
The more this lockout goes on, the more arrogant Bettman appears. He really needs to be axed from his position. Both sides are stubborn and obviously lack negotian skills, this has become a PR battle more than anything. Soemone step in there and fix this mess because these buffoons have got nothing.

Teezax is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:54 AM
  #13
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
1) They are both morons.

2) The players "flexibility" was really an attempt to purchase a system that is as similar to the current one as possible. That wasn't a major concession, it was an offer delivered in the belief that they could get back to where they are now... no matter what they are saying. I would have been much more friendly to them if they'd offered 12% rollback with a luxury tax with actual teeth involved.

3) Bettman isn't really the problem... the fact that he only needs 8 owners or something to support his actions is the problem. There are a lot of owners out there who are losing cash and can't be competitive. Those are the people actually driving this boat and they aren't wrong. There is no way to stay consistently competitive in this league in many of the markets as the financial landscape is currently constructed.

4) A luxury tax with teeth would work to a large extent. The owners want a salary cap because it will make it so that they can ALL make money off of their franchises and thus their franchise value will explode -- it is a GREAT time to buy a franchise if you got a cash and have been paying attention to everything -- also, a tax attacks the owners pockets more than the players... part of the reason they'd rather have a cap as well.

5) The players acting as if their offer was this landmark thing is a joke, and insulting to anyone that has been paying attention. It was a major offer in terms of the 24% rollback and I thank them for at least making a statement, but the fact that they offered little major systematic influence to control spending is a disgrace. However, both of those proposals, as Cox noted in the Toronto Star, basically set down the negotiating landscape... hopefully they return to the table. No matter what the players believe, they can get a better deal now than they will 6 months to a year from now.

Jester is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:49 AM
  #14
bennysflyers16
Registered User
 
bennysflyers16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 20,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongoose
I take whichever side that will bring hockey back to this country.
AMEN !

Disagree with both, Make a deal already !

bennysflyers16 is online now  
Old
12-16-2004, 01:18 PM
  #15
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
If small market teams cant be competitive, then how do you explain the tecent cup Finals? Money helps, but clearly you can do well under the present system building from the draft. You may not get to keep your talented player after their second contract, but you get a cheap influx of young talent every year. The player proposal severely limits rookie salaries BTW, which greatly benefitts small market clubs.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 01:58 PM
  #16
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
If small market teams cant be competitive, then how do you explain the tecent cup Finals? Money helps, but clearly you can do well under the present system building from the draft. You may not get to keep your talented player after their second contract, but you get a cheap influx of young talent every year. The player proposal severely limits rookie salaries BTW, which greatly benefitts small market clubs.
Calgary was a crap hole, they went up this year but have already been forced to start shedding some higher salaries... and they are close to not being able to keep Iginla.

The system shouldn't be setup so that the big clubs can vulture over the good drafting of the smaller teams. But disregarding that, competitive balance strengthens the entire league. That is the one fact of the NHLPA's stance on the salary cap -- which will absolutely cause competitive balance over time -- that doesn't make sense. If the NHL can get these teams in hole in the wall places competitive, that will breed some fans. If you can build some solid fan bases then you will start to generate more revenue... which will, in a % cap, lead to more funds for the players.

The NFL is a classic example of how good this system can work. Even if you complain about player movement, which will be less of an issue in the NHL since they are not talking about non-guaranteed contracts, you cannot complain about the mobility of teams in the standings. Unless your team is run by utter morons in the NFL, you have a shot at being competitive, even as a horrible team (san diego), in a very short time window. That keeps fans interested -- don't tell me the shedding of talent hasn't hurt Pittsburgh's once strong fan base -- and then the winning adds more to the group you already had interested.

It's about a partnership among everyone in a % cap. That is really what they are talking about with this cap in the end, a luxury tax is much less of a partnership.

Jester is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 02:54 PM
  #17
flyercide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
owners side

pittsburgh, ottawa, buffalo going bankrupt during yester-year makes this situation pretty clear cut to me. a lot of team's are losing money. no i can't prove it but i believe it. i want to keep this brief so... ill sum up my main reasoning... that id like to see small market team's remain in the league & be competitive. all teams should be on equal footing to be competitive not based on how much they can spend. i am tired of the greedy over-paid players not just in hockey but in all sports.

flyercide is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:32 PM
  #18
FlyersGuy69
Registered User
 
FlyersGuy69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: purgatory
Country: United States
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyersGuy69
owners side.

FlyersGuy69 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:11 PM
  #19
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Calgary was a crap hole, they went up this year but have already been forced to start shedding some higher salaries... and they are close to not being able to keep Iginla

The system shouldn't be setup so that the big clubs can vulture over the good drafting of the smaller teams. But disregarding that, competitive balance strengthens the entire league. That is the one fact of the NHLPA's stance on the salary cap -- which will absolutely cause competitive balance over time -- that doesn't make sense. If the NHL can get these teams in hole in the wall places competitive, that will breed some fans. If you can build some solid fan bases then you will start to generate more revenue... which will, in a % cap, lead to more funds for the players..
Then what about Tampa? What about Ottawa? What about Vancouver? San Jose? The Devils (at least in the past)? To say that small market clubs cant be competitive is simply wrong, because many are. Money helps, but it doesnt buy you a cup or even a spot in the playoffs.

Quote:

The NFL is a classic example of how good this system can work. Even if you complain about player movement, which will be less of an issue in the NHL since they are not talking about non-guaranteed contracts, you cannot complain about the mobility of teams in the standings. Unless your team is run by utter morons in the NFL, you have a shot at being competitive, even as a horrible team (san diego), in a very short time window. That keeps fans interested -- don't tell me the shedding of talent hasn't hurt Pittsburgh's once strong fan base -- and then the winning adds more to the group you already had interested.
The NFL also gets around 50 million dollars PER TEAM in TV revenue. The NHL pays for itself rink by rink. Helping to redistribute funds through revenue sharing actually doesnt require the players consent anyway. The NHL could do that any time it choses, but the owners dont want to.

Quote:
It's about a partnership among everyone in a % cap. That is really what they are talking about with this cap in the end, a luxury tax is much less of a partnership.
A cap is also illegal without the explicit written consent of the players Union. Its called collusion, and would not last a day in court or in front of the NRLB. If the league wants a cap, they have to give something back to the players Union.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:12 PM
  #20
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
The NFL also gets around 50 million dollars PER TEAM in TV revenue. The NHL pays for itself rink by rink. Helping to redistribute funds through revenue sharing actually doesnt require the players consent anyway. The NHL could do that any time it choses, but the owners dont want to.
NFL teams actually get more than $75 million per team.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:25 PM
  #21
Cuiff
Registered User
 
Cuiff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Horsham (Philly)
Country: Italy
Posts: 2,451
vCash: 500
owners..................................

Cuiff is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:39 PM
  #22
04' hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: City of Brotherly Lo
Posts: 629
vCash: 500
Owners

Owners all the way.....two other major sports(NBA, NFL), EVEN WITH BIG TV $, have salary caps.
Why not the NHL???????????????????????????????????????
The owners have to have it to save themselves, reality check time for the NHLPA.

04' hockey is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:10 PM
  #23
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04' hockey
Owners all the way.....two other major sports(NBA, NFL), EVEN WITH BIG TV $, have salary caps.
Why not the NHL???????????????????????????????????????
The owners have to have it to save themselves, reality check time for the NHLPA.
The NBA does not have a legitimate salary cap. Only the NFL has a true salary cap.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:07 PM
  #24
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Question for the people who support the owners:

If a salary cap is put in place, what are the chances Bobby Clarke will lower ticket prices to reflect the thirty or fourty million dollars per season the organization will be saving? ,

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:30 PM
  #25
FlyersGuy69
Registered User
 
FlyersGuy69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: purgatory
Country: United States
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyersGuy69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
Question for the people who support the owners:

If a salary cap is put in place, what are the chances Bobby Clarke will lower ticket prices to reflect the thirty or fourty million dollars per season the organization will be saving? ,
not a chance in hell...
Snider says they have lost money up until this past year when they went deep into the playoffs.

FlyersGuy69 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 03:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.