HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 10:03 PM
  #301
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,983
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Normative? Wow your really 101ing me now, Bringing out the discipline specific lingo!


1. your statment was infact Normative. You said that the model would LIKLEY work. normative statment nes pas? the Positive statment would be to say the model doesn't work.

"Exponential losses" tells me right away that the deal isn't working.The owners screaming to the heavens that the system is broken, tells me the same. Exponential losses arent something you just "tinker" away. If they are allowed to tinker it will end up back here in three or four years again. Again. AGAIN!!!!

which all goes back to my original point. is it a charity club where rich powerful owners support weakerones?, Or, is it a business where Teams that can't make it need to move, or fold and be sold and bought and moved for whoever puts up the bux. Right now the owners tell us they are a business when it's convenient to them, but act an awful lot like a private club when it suits them. Either way The players did what was asked last time, watched record revenues occur , onlybe asked to take a hit again so a few billionaires who made bad decisions about the viability of thier hockey markets can be propped up.
Sorry, there is some miscommunication and it is pretty much all my bad. You're right about me guessing the future and the discussion about which model works is normative statement... I haven't been sculpting my arguments that well due to me trying to post in between things in the day and I apologize for that. We're discussing multiple facets and I've been smushing my arguments without really explaining what has to do with what.

When I was mentioning normative/positive statements and game theory I was meaning about the UFA market and pricing. Which neither of those things is exclusive to soft sciences like economics.
Also, I didn't specify that the losses, while being exponentially growing, is still accelerating at a slower rate than pre-lockout... so it wasn't a total failure, just a partial failure... like a lesser of two-evils.

I'll try to do better now:

I'm actually not for the players or for the owners. I see reasons against siding against/for both.

For the owners/against the players:
*the players have delayed talks in multiple ways and fashions, and from all appearances have not been productive in their negotiating
*the cap system has its faults and hasn't stopped the losers from losing exponentially, but has slowed down... so I view it as a step in the right direction but not fixed yet
*luxury tax allows the stupid "Pittsburgh Pirates" fiasco and the old system was causing losses to grow faster than the cap system
*the owners tried to start negotiations early which would allow for them to bargain items like HRR and smaller details; with a shortage of time, they have to leave negotiations to one particular item, in this case: percentage points
*Fehr has a history of calling a strike after starting a season, so it would be dumb for the owners to not lock out the players with the expiary of the old CBA... even if it's a ****ty situation
*if you are negotiating intelligently and have a short turnaround like the owners do, it doesn't make sense for them to negotiate HRR and percentage points... what they probably were planning to do was over demand percentage points, than give back points in return for HRR structure and such, but Fehr is hard-balling
*the standard is around a 50/50 split, as shown by other professional sports
*realistically it is unlikely to expect hockey to grow as fast as it has been, and so it is likely the players were actually asking for a raise and not improvements
*just because the players gave up some doesn't necessarily mean they gave up enough (but also on the other hand doesn't mean they didn't either)

For the players/against the owners:
*just going down a few percentage points won't fix the problem, only improve the situation short-term
*losing hockey sucks
*they make less than the owners and it's hard to root for the money makers
*while though there is less points for the players the first one is a BIG one that I'm highlighting it here

PS it is of my opinion that causing a few teams to fold or move will only delay the return to our current problem just like the players giving up some percentage points will...

EDIT:
Here is the image from nhlnumbers.com:

It is by Forbes data so there is problems with it. Also, because the fiscal year falls part way through the season, the last year would include partial Atlanta and partial Winnipeg
One big thing to note is that looking at averages, the NHL in it's entirety is running at a very small profit margin... around 3%... so although I really think that the rich need to share with the poor more, it still won't solve the problems...


Last edited by garret9: 09-13-2012 at 11:55 PM.
garret9 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 10:26 PM
  #302
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Normative? Wow your really 101ing me now, Bringing out the discipline specific lingo!


1. your statment was infact Normative. You said that the model would LIKLEY work. normative statment nes pas? the Positive statment would be to say the model doesn't work.

"Exponential losses" tells me right away that the deal isn't working.The owners screaming to the heavens that the system is broken, tells me the same. Exponential losses arent something you just "tinker" away. If they are allowed to tinker it will end up back here in three or four years again. Again. AGAIN!!!!

which all goes back to my original point. is it a charity club where rich powerful owners support weakerones?, Or, is it a business where Teams that can't make it need to move, or fold and be sold and bought and moved for whoever puts up the bux. Right now the owners tell us they are a business when it's convenient to them, but act an awful lot like a private club when it suits them. Either way The players did what was asked last time, watched record revenues occur , onlybe asked to take a hit again so a few billionaires who made bad decisions about the viability of thier hockey markets can be propped up.
I think that is sort of the issue here no? There are a limited amount of locations to which they can move. If they fold then half the players whining on twitter will not be collecting an NHL salary any longer, and there is also a limited amount of ppl in this world rich enough to own a hockey and that actually want to own a hockey team (especially a money losing hockey team, which when we look at teams like Ottawa and Minnesota that have had recent problems making money is not the exclusive domain of non traditional markets)

veganhunter is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 12:17 AM
  #303
Reed Solomon
GO ✈'s GO
 
Reed Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,057
vCash: 500
There is also the issue of a team that has say 15 bad years. People WILL stop supporting that team. Does that mean the team should move? Not necessarily. I dislike the NBA and NFL examples of teams moving all the time. Not that teams shouldn't move, but the system should be set up in such a way that a team moves very rarely.

Reed Solomon is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 12:21 AM
  #304
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,844
vCash: 234
Put another team in the GTA and one in Seattle. Great hockey to be had there.

DespoticNewt is online now  
Old
09-14-2012, 12:33 AM
  #305
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 501
vCash: 500
@garret9 I too haven't been articulate in expressing my opinon.

Heres my problem. I,like the players, am for better revenue shareing system. It works real well for the NFL's tv money. It works real well for the NHL's merchandising buiness. why cant it work for all hockey related revenues.

The owners want to tinker with a model they guaranteed was gonna work last time, but it hasn't. Now remeber that guarentee cuz it's important.

So the owners force the players to a cap, as well as a substantive roll bac. A roll back on what were supposed to be Legaly binding contracts, a rollback i doubt a single owner would ever even consider suffering themselves if there was anyway a team of Armani suit wearing weasels for hire(lawyers) couldn't get them out of.

"Here" they said,"do us a solid, take a one time paycut, and agree to a salary cap and we can fix this league and make us all a bunch of money and give you all jobs."

So the players did it. They swallowed thier pride, tor up thier legally binding contracts, and signed new ones.

Don't tell me they were all greedy SOBs or that they all had thier backs against the wall cuz there were alot of players who just wanted to play and compete. Danial Alfreddsson for one did it willingly because he felt the 4.5 mil or whatever a year was enough for him. He felt that it was more important to blah blah blah.

So there has been nothing but good news since then. Right? Garry Braggs on tv about how much revenues are up, American viewers are going up, Record revenues, Sid the Kid, the whole shebang. Garry gets new contracts, soon he's better paid thn some of the league superstars are.

But.

It doesnt work.

Because the Owners are doing all the things they are doing with the silly salries right now, and then suddenly it's "Here, do us a solid, take a one time paycut, and agree to a salary cap and we can fix this league and make us all a bunch of and give you all jobs." "Guarenteed!"

AGAIN? Seiously?!?!

the article said the data was estimated. What about the money the league has soaked into keeping the coyotees afloat? Howabout the fees and travel expenses and procedural crap? is that all in there? that has to come out of league revenue. if that money alones was divied up it could pay for three or four forth line players.


Sorry Bad mangment shouldn't lead to the players being told they hae to take a hit on what they have signed , again legally binding contracts, for

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 12:52 AM
  #306
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,243
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
The day I side with the owners is the day they come out and say "We want to cut players' salaries so that it's so affordable, the average working family will be able to come to games once a month", and actually follow through by lowering ticket prices. Hell, if you're going to save money on players' salaries, why not pass some of those savings along to the people working in the concession stands and parking lots during games? The ones who get paid next to nothing.

I just can't side with the owners. Too much greed.
What? The owners aren't the employers of that Pizza Hut kiosk guy, or the guy who runs the parking lot across the street. There's going to some sort of concession contract between the owner and some outside food purveyor, and the team might get like 40% - 50% of the gross concessions or something.

They shouldn't be expected to give bonuses to people who aren't their employees.

Even if they do run some of their own concessions in their own arena, a minimum wage job is a minimum wage job. You serve hotdogs and scan tickets. Ordinary skills. You get paid as appropriate for your job description, regardless of the wealth of your employer, just like most other white collar or blue collar jobs.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:03 AM
  #307
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
@garret9 I too haven't been articulate in expressing my opinon.

Heres my problem. I,like the players, am for better revenue shareing system. It works real well for the NFL's tv money. It works real well for the NHL's merchandising buiness. why cant it work for all hockey related revenues.

The owners want to tinker with a model they guaranteed was gonna work last time, but it hasn't. Now remeber that guarentee cuz it's important.

So the owners force the players to a cap, as well as a substantive roll bac. A roll back on what were supposed to be Legaly binding contracts, a rollback i doubt a single owner would ever even consider suffering themselves if there was anyway a team of Armani suit wearing weasels for hire(lawyers) couldn't get them out of.

"Here" they said,"do us a solid, take a one time paycut, and agree to a salary cap and we can fix this league and make us all a bunch of money and give you all jobs."

So the players did it. They swallowed thier pride, tor up thier legally binding contracts, and signed new ones.

Don't tell me they were all greedy SOBs or that they all had thier backs against the wall cuz there were alot of players who just wanted to play and compete. Danial Alfreddsson for one did it willingly because he felt the 4.5 mil or whatever a year was enough for him. He felt that it was more important to blah blah blah.

So there has been nothing but good news since then. Right? Garry Braggs on tv about how much revenues are up, American viewers are going up, Record revenues, Sid the Kid, the whole shebang. Garry gets new contracts, soon he's better paid thn some of the league superstars are.

But.

It doesnt work.

Because the Owners are doing all the things they are doing with the silly salries right now, and then suddenly it's "Here, do us a solid, take a one time paycut, and agree to a salary cap and we can fix this league and make us all a bunch of and give you all jobs." "Guarenteed!"

AGAIN? Seiously?!?!

the article said the data was estimated. What about the money the league has soaked into keeping the coyotees afloat? Howabout the fees and travel expenses and procedural crap? is that all in there? that has to come out of league revenue. if that money alones was divied up it could pay for three or four forth line players.


Sorry Bad mangment shouldn't lead to the players being told they hae to take a hit on what they have signed , again legally binding contracts, for
Yeah they do need to do a better job or revenue sharing but if you realllllly like the NFL model then the players get 47% of revenue and non guaranteed contracts.

On another note the players WILL be taking a 50% or less split. both the NFL and NBA players did. The NHL is not even remotely as popular or as profitable as either of those sports. Half the owners are going to be saving money by not playing this season. They can sit out indefinitely the players cannot. So if they really believe they won't be taking a pay cut to 50% good luck to them.

Also the players blabbing on twitter are really starting to piss me off. Comparing them taking a paycut to people who probably for the most part aren't even making 80,000 a year. Saying they would play under the old CBA till a deal was reached righttttttt so Fehr can repeat his shenagins he pulled in baseball. Guys saying they'd love to see Bettman block a shot lol I'd love to see some of those nimrods get a law degree and blaming the whole lockout out on him even though they know he takes orders from the guys who sign their cheques. Guys saying its preposterous that player costs outside of salaries could possibly amount to anything meaningful enough that it's hurting the owners in the pockets. Trying to spread belief that there aren't a lot of teams in trouble financially and just because the NHL made money that means every team is profitable. One player flat out told a guy he was wrong that some teams aren't profitable and another guy spouting off about there being 1 Crosby in the world and 1200 billionaires. How many of those 1200 are wanting to get in the business of owning a sports team and specifically hockey. Esecially when when very few teams in this league make a serious profit. My guess... not too many. It is embarrassing and sad that they think we are that stupid or they are that ill informed and lacking any knowledge.


Last edited by veganhunter: 09-14-2012 at 01:36 AM.
veganhunter is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 03:29 AM
  #308
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,243
vCash: 50
I'm with the owners on this. Owning a hockey team is not a slam dunk nor will it ever be, and this is precisely the reason why it took so long for us to get a franchise back in risky, small-market Winnipeg in the first place. Owning a hockey team is costly business, more risky than the other 'big four' North American sports by far. I almost think of it like opening a restaurant, where the owners may have to absorb loss after loss every year and never see a great ROI. The owners absorb all the financial risk. The wrong marketing and a bad location will kill you. Regardless, the players always get paid no matter how bad the bottom line is. Even in the Phoenixes and Atlantas.

To me the owners are the only ones who are trying to keep the costs down of operating an NHL franchise. As much as I want to see hockey this year, I feel that if we really want hockey to stay in Winnipeg for the long term, we're going to need a lockout and the owners are going to have to win.

Go owners. Yeah, I said it. For the long term, Winnipeg needs the owners to win.

I can't sleep. Sigh.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 05:56 AM
  #309
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
I'm with the owners on this. Owning a hockey team is not a slam dunk nor will it ever be, and this is precisely the reason why it took so long for us to get a franchise back in risky, small-market Winnipeg in the first place. Owning a hockey team is costly business, more risky than the other 'big four' North American sports by far. I almost think of it like opening a restaurant, where the owners may have to absorb loss after loss every year and never see a great ROI. The owners absorb all the financial risk. The wrong marketing and a bad location will kill you. Regardless, the players always get paid no matter how bad the bottom line is. Even in the Phoenixes and Atlantas.

To me the owners are the only ones who are trying to keep the costs down of operating an NHL franchise. As much as I want to see hockey this year, I feel that if we really want hockey to stay in Winnipeg for the long term, we're going to need a lockout and the owners are going to have to win.

Go owners. Yeah, I said it. For the long term, Winnipeg needs the owners to win.

I can't sleep. Sigh.
But the owners "won" last time. Yet here we are 7 years later and the players are raking in it, players are completely happy with the agreement and the owners are crying poor again.

It is not nearly so simple as siding with the owners or players. I don't know why people always feel the need to take sides. What needs to happen is that both sides need to negotiate and find a model that will work long-term. The increased revenue sharing proposed by the players is the key to the whole agreement. It is designed to help the revenue disparity, which is something if the weak markets get their act together, WPG will need. Yet the percentage also needs to come down, which is what the owners are trying to do, and the hard cap NEEDS to stay, which the owners are trying to do. Getting around the hard cap will merely turn the NHL into the NBA where only 3-4 teams are competitive and nobody cares, resulting in falling attendance, falling TV numbers, falling revenue.

So you see, it needs to be a compromise, we need to find the best of both worlds, which will be best for WPG and the rest of the league.

__________________


Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 06:33 AM
  #310
Back in the Bigs
and lovin' it !!
 
Back in the Bigs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
The players put up this public image that they are totally unified in their belief that the latest proposal by the NHL is ridiculously unfair. It'd be interesting to know, if there was a secret ballot today of all NHL players, what percentage would say "Let's take it.", knowing that it is unlikely to get better.

They have to know they're never going to make up what they lose. I heard or read somewhere that something like 240 active players going in to the last lockout and the resulting lost season never played another game in the NHL. Not sure I can believe that number, and please correct me if it is out to lunch, but if that number is even close to accurate, and I'm one of lower echelon / older guys in the league, I think I know what my vote would be

I'm not really cheering for either side, like most of us, after 15 years without NHL here and 1 fun year last season, I'm just ticked there's not going to be a normal season this year, if at all ... at this point, I'm good with whatever is best for the Jets long term

Back in the Bigs is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 07:05 AM
  #311
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,425
vCash: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back in the Bigs View Post
The players put up this public image that they are totally unified in their belief that the latest proposal by the NHL is ridiculously unfair. It'd be interesting to know, if there was a secret ballot today of all NHL players, what percentage would say "Let's take it.", knowing that it is unlikely to get better.

They have to know they're never going to make up what they lose. I heard or read somewhere that something like 240 active players going in to the last lockout and the resulting lost season never played another game in the NHL. Not sure I can believe that number, and please correct me if it is out to lunch, but if that number is even close to accurate, and I'm one of lower echelon / older guys in the league, I think I know what my vote would be

I'm not really cheering for either side, like most of us, after 15 years without NHL here and 1 fun year last season, I'm just ticked there's not going to be a normal season this year, if at all ... at this point, I'm good with whatever is best for the Jets long term
I'm not sure if your number is accurate, but my understanding is the average NHL career is approx 5 years long, and there are approx 750 roster players based on current roster sizes so doing the math on average 150 current players would never play again if a season was lost.

Of course this is an over simplification but I think there are also a couple other factors working against older players at the ends of their careers. After a lost season there will be a double influx of young players comming in after playing in more a competitive AHL (young stars on entry level contracts will be playing) and from a more competive CHL (young potentials stars playing another year in juniors). There is limited oportunity for older journeyman players to ply their trade during a lockout. These are not the guys the KHL and Europen leagues are looking for for an undetermined possibly brief period of time.


Last edited by KingBogo: 09-14-2012 at 06:30 PM.
KingBogo is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:05 PM
  #312
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Was watching the TSN guys last night going over the possibility that the PA makes a move during the lockout to remove the cap. Not a likely scenario (it seems they love the cap) but if they did it would put the negotiations on hold for a long time.

Then I started thinking, if the PA were to try this, I can see the owners changing the contracts to non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL and then we would end up not hearing from either side and the entire season would be lost.

There's still a few ticks left on the clock and perhaps the PA can contact the league and share another idea or three. We know there's a lot of talking that needs to be done still,

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:10 PM
  #313
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingSalamon View Post
Was watching the TSN guys last night going over the possibility that the PA makes a move during the lockout to remove the cap. Not a likely scenario (it seems they love the cap) but if they did it would put the negotiations on hold for a long time.

Then I started thinking, if the PA were to try this, I can see the owners changing the contracts to non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL and then we would end up not hearing from either side and the entire season would be lost.

There's still a few ticks left on the clock and perhaps the PA can contact the league and share another idea or three. We know there's a lot of talking that needs to be done still,
I truly hope not.

Their proposal was far enough a way from the current frame work in the owners minds to be a non starter. If they so much as attempt to negotiate a cap removal we won't be seeing hockey for a very, very long time.

Grind is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:19 PM
  #314
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
I truly hope not.

Their proposal was far enough a way from the current frame work in the owners minds to be a non starter. If they so much as attempt to negotiate a cap removal we won't be seeing hockey for a very, very long time.
Agreed... but the one thing that has me both hopeful and concerned is that the discussions to date have been quite businesslike and nobody has really said that they were done talking. There have not been any nasty blowups or anything so it can be seen as a good thing or the calm before the storm.

Amazing how all these discussions are about splitting the HRR... no players have been asking about their safety or anything at all. Hmmm... and Biznasty had the gall to tweet that they were fighting for their future (and not the fans future). You'd think they would mention a little more about the concussions that have had an impact on the shortening of careers etc.

Not that the owners are off the hook here... they have their warts as well. In the owners defense though, they have made changes that are understandable and by changing the percentage points, they've shown a willingness to move.

Bettman should tell Fehr that hockey sticks don't grow on trees anymore. They're expensive!

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:22 PM
  #315
s1g
Registered User
 
s1g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Who pays for tickets to watch Chipman and Thompson eat popcorn in the press box? I don't. I pay to watch the players. Therefore, the players should be entitled to more of that money. Sure, owners assume all the risk by putting all their money into operating a team, but hey, you can't really get rich off owning a sports team anyhow. If these owners were such good businessmen, they'd put their money into safer ventures where profit is guaranteed.

s1g is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:32 PM
  #316
jimmycrackcorn
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmycrackcorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,304
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
Who pays for tickets to watch Chipman and Thompson eat popcorn in the press box? I don't. I pay to watch the players. Therefore, the players should be entitled to more of that money. Sure, owners assume all the risk by putting all their money into operating a team, but hey, you can't really get rich off owning a sports team anyhow. If these owners were such good businessmen, they'd put their money into safer ventures where profit is guaranteed.
I'm sorry but your comment makes absolutely no sense to me.

If the owners were "such good businessmen" and "put their money into safer ventures where profit is guaranteed" - there would be no NHL since all the owners would not invest in such a risky venture...

jimmycrackcorn is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:35 PM
  #317
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
Who pays for tickets to watch Chipman and Thompson eat popcorn in the press box? I don't. I pay to watch the players. Therefore, the players should be entitled to more of that money. Sure, owners assume all the risk by putting all their money into operating a team, but hey, you can't really get rich off owning a sports team anyhow. If these owners were such good businessmen, they'd put their money into safer ventures where profit is guaranteed.
You contradicted yourself a bit you said the players should get more but then named off a bunch of reasons why the owners should be the ones getting a bigger share?

veganhunter is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 01:40 PM
  #318
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
Who pays for tickets to watch Chipman and Thompson eat popcorn in the press box? I don't. I pay to watch the players. Therefore, the players should be entitled to more of that money. Sure, owners assume all the risk by putting all their money into operating a team, but hey, you can't really get rich off owning a sports team anyhow. If these owners were such good businessmen, they'd put their money into safer ventures where profit is guaranteed.
I have to admit that I've spent time looking into the press box to see GM's etc (Burke being one of them) and I guess I don't buy my tickets to see him... but in a way, I did.

Just messing with ya though... I agree we buy tix to watch the players. We buy tickets to be entertained and to do so in a safe manner. Everyone at the arena who gets a cheque is doing something to provide that atmosphere. If the ice guy doesn't do his job, there is no ice. No ice, no hockey. There is a lot more to running a sports team than paying player salaries.

Oh, there is no safe venture where profit is guaranteed. Venture itself prohibits a guarantee.

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 03:04 PM
  #319
Hammer Slammer
Global Moderator
 
Hammer Slammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,668
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Hammer Slammer
This looks promising. Not.

http://islanders.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=641371

__________________
Hammer Slammer is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 03:42 PM
  #320
Diatidialga
Registered User
 
Diatidialga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,038
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer Slammer View Post
21 Players!!!!

Diatidialga is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:04 PM
  #321
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 663
Proof that they are going to "EXTERMINATE" the season.

Oh well, the family from Toronto was going to come down here to watch the Winter Classic. I guess I need to continue the Russian Jet theme for a while.

Concordski is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:19 PM
  #322
s1g
Registered User
 
s1g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Doan signs with the Coyotes and gets a signing bonus.......and you chumps believe the owners are broke?

s1g is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:23 PM
  #323
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
Doan signs with the Coyotes and gets a signing bonus.......and you chumps believe the owners are broke?
Good news for Phoenix, at least.

Concordski is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:23 PM
  #324
mzappa
Jets fans in space
 
mzappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 50
There is no signing bonus because there is no money to pay him!
(ie. its deferred until...forever)

That franchise is done, over, caput. Send in the moving trucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
Doan signs with the Coyotes and gets a signing bonus.......and you chumps believe the owners are broke?

mzappa is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:33 PM
  #325
Lux Aurumque*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Albert, Alberta
Country: Norway
Posts: 15,653
vCash: 500
Thoughts...

- The average Canadian makes $1,713,000 in a 40 year career. The average NHL salary in 2011-2012 was $2.4 million. This is to PLAY A GAME!

- Revenue sharing needs to be eliminated completely. Teams should earn their own money. Can't make money? Move the team. This would eliminate the Atlanta/Florida/Nashville/Phoenix/etc type financial failures.

- Players have no right to complain about the league wanting to lower salaries. Not only are they horrendously overpaid, but they also have other options. Don't like what the NHL is willing to pay? Go to the KHL.

Lux Aurumque* 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 05:41 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.