HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-25-2012, 01:54 PM
  #501
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
Excuse me, business is business so we should just roll over and take it or leave with our tails between our legs? I'm afraid that if that is your recommended approach to business, then you are going to retire one broke dude!

Katz is taking a liberty that - though he will probably get away with it, I admit - is not within the normal realm of business. Burning bridges with your clientele rather than building a trust (Jets, anyone?) is no way to run a business. You may as well open a restaurant then admit to urinating on the food.

I have no problem with anyone tearing into Katz for this. I don't see it as defensible. And how about Lowe, Gretzky, and Mac. T? It seems they think they are the Oilers and that everything after 80's (stable team, loyal fans, love for hockey) is all down to them.
Sorry I generalized a little broadly on that statement. I don't condon Katz , and completely agree with your second paragraph.


I merely meant the poster was using a very, very broad brush to paint all ownership as evil capitalistic money grubbing *******s, and had sort of read between the lines (possibly incorrectly) that the whole reason there's a lockout, and issues is because the owners are - by golly!- concerned with making a profit!

Do i think what Katz is doing is fair? hell no
Do i think what's gone on in glendale is "fair"? hell no

but as you stated, both of those are not normal business practices, business practices that most of the owners follow.

i could provide an opposit example and say the players don't deserve anymore money, because paul bissonette is a loudmouth party boy plug, so that's what all pro union nhlers are.

It just seems a certain poster has fairly romantic idea of what the NHL should/could be if it weren't for these evil, conspiring, capitalistic owners, an idea that is not very firmly routed in reality.

What Katz is sleazy, but it's certainly not the standard MO.

Grind is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 01:57 PM
  #502
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
i could provide an opposit example and say the players don't deserve anymore money, because paul bissonette is a loudmouth party boy plug, so that's what all pro union nhlers are.
How dare you...
That's it, I'm telling BizNasty and linking him to that comment

Edit: I see your response and I forgive you... But I don't want to waste space to make another OT reply haha

garret9 is online now  
Old
09-25-2012, 01:58 PM
  #503
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
How dare you...
That's it, I'm telling BizNasty and linking him to that comment
wow now...i never said i didn't love him for it!

Grind is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 02:21 PM
  #504
PitbulI
Registered User
 
PitbulI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 371
vCash: 500
When I read that a couple Jets with 2 way contracts were sent to the Ice Caps, I also read that Scheifele was sent back to Barrie.

Does this mean that he's with Barrie now for an entire season or can he be called up for up to 10 games again for the Jets if say the season were actually played at some point this year or early next year?

PitbulI is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:21 PM
  #505
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
mmm kay. well mr business is business. Fine but be warned this is your future here mr Jets fan. In 5 or ten years it'll be us against the wall again. It'll be the Jets leaving town again for greener pastures. Wonder what your thoughts will be then.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:33 PM
  #506
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Another thing.
If “business is business” then why doesn’t Jim Balsile own a team in Hamilton? Like hate or indifferent to Balsilie as a person, or businessman, He had the cash, had a legal right to purchase. Moyse Declared Bankruptcy, Balsilie made the best offer to purchase the asset available. If business was business Hamilton would have a team right now. But no, when the NHL owners want to maintain control, and power…Suddenly it’s not business. Suddenly it’s an exclusive club where only privileged citizens with the right friends can join. Just like when they yanked the Jets out of Winnipeg the first time

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 09:22 PM
  #507
EpicGingy
Registered User
 
EpicGingy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,417
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
mmm kay. well mr business is business. Fine but be warned this is your future here mr Jets fan. In 5 or ten years it'll be us against the wall again. It'll be the Jets leaving town again for greener pastures. Wonder what your thoughts will be then.
Forgive me for finding this hard to believe

The last Jets died because of escalating salaries, a terrible CDN, and a lower attendance rate.

Now player salaries are under control (barring the players somehow win this CBA), the CDN is stable and in great shape, and the MTS Centre is going to be sold out for quite a while.

And they didn't just yank the Jets away. As stated above there were many things that lead to their demise, and no local ownership groups were able to get a deal together.

EpicGingy is online now  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:14 PM
  #508
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,700
vCash: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Another thing.
If “business is business” then why doesn’t Jim Balsile own a team in Hamilton? Like hate or indifferent to Balsilie as a person, or businessman, He had the cash, had a legal right to purchase. Moyse Declared Bankruptcy, Balsilie made the best offer to purchase the asset available. If business was business Hamilton would have a team right now. But no, when the NHL owners want to maintain control, and power…Suddenly it’s not business. Suddenly it’s an exclusive club where only privileged citizens with the right friends can join. Just like when they yanked the Jets out of Winnipeg the first time
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that Jim Balsilie doesn't own an NHL team is due to him trying to bully his way through the process. TNSE and Balsilie are light and day in regards to their respective approaches, which is 2 parts of the reason why Winnipeg now has a team and Balsilie doesn't. We were also the beneficiaries of impeccable timing; Balsilie was in financial straights due to Blackberry's freefall in the smart phone market; Atlanta Spirit wanted out immediately and couldn't find a local buyer; the NHL didn't want to support 2 failing franchises; and TNSE, after spending the last 8-10 years slowly building a rapport with Bettman, and having all the legal paperwork completed in respect to an impending purchase of the Coyotes, was able to slide right in.

DespoticNewt is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:23 PM
  #509
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Another thing.
If “business is business” then why doesn’t Jim Balsile own a team in Hamilton? Like hate or indifferent to Balsilie as a person, or businessman, He had the cash, had a legal right to purchase. Moyse Declared Bankruptcy, Balsilie made the best offer to purchase the asset available. If business was business Hamilton would have a team right now. But no, when the NHL owners want to maintain control, and power…Suddenly it’s not business. Suddenly it’s an exclusive club where only privileged citizens with the right friends can join. Just like when they yanked the Jets out of Winnipeg the first time
I think I posted this on that Edmonton thread in the BoH forum, but a part of the NHL's business is getting taxpayers to foot the bill for new arenas. That's one of the reasons the league fought Balsillie (also from previous dealings with him, a lot of owners didn't want him joining the club). Glendale had just built a brand new arena for the Coyotes. If 5 years later the league let the franchise walk away, you wouldn't wield as much leverage in situations like what's happening now in Edmonton. So the cost of running a money losing franchise in Phoenix for a few years is offset by the potential benefits (i.e. $450 million arenas in Edmonton). Even if it all falls through in Glendale the NHL will be able to say it exhausted every option and then some.

But for all that, the threat of the Oilers leaving Edmonton is not legitimate. They're just trying to scare the pols into action.

Gm0ney is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 12:31 AM
  #510
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Sure Sure Sure TSNE is different.... Our New Wonderful owners have Money and a solid plan and Commitment to the market.... Our government stepped up they won't abandon us. The market did our part and stepped up, they won't abandon us.

Wait wasn't everyone in Edmonton saying that exact same thing in 2008? Hmm and yet here we are 4 short years later.

As for Balsille? I'm not saying he was right or fair. But hey, business is business right? You use your money and leverage to buy the assets you want right ? It’s business right? I mean No other owner would use tactics like that in any other business deal right? No owner in any of their private business dealings would use leverage and cash reserves to purchase a depressed value asset someone else wanted to protect right. No owner would dare to think that they should have the right to do what they want with an asset they paid hundreds of millions of dollars for right? .....YEAH RIGHT!

So again it's like I said. when it suiots the NHL then they say "It's a business." when they want power and control...it's a club.They care about Money and Power... many of thier actions over the last 20 years show me they care nothing for the fans. They pay good lip service to us, but at the end of the day they treat the fans like crap. TSE might be one of the very few to be different.....but then again the Oilers fans thought that as well.


Last edited by Skidooboy: 09-26-2012 at 12:41 AM. Reason: finnished argment
Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 06:41 AM
  #511
EpicGingy
Registered User
 
EpicGingy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,417
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Sure Sure Sure TSNE is different.... Our New Wonderful owners have Money and a solid plan and Commitment to the market.... Our government stepped up they won't abandon us. The market did our part and stepped up, they won't abandon us.

Wait wasn't everyone in Edmonton saying that exact same thing in 2008? Hmm and yet here we are 4 short years later.

As for Balsille? I'm not saying he was right or fair. But hey, business is business right? You use your money and leverage to buy the assets you want right ? It’s business right? I mean No other owner would use tactics like that in any other business deal right? No owner in any of their private business dealings would use leverage and cash reserves to purchase a depressed value asset someone else wanted to protect right. No owner would dare to think that they should have the right to do what they want with an asset they paid hundreds of millions of dollars for right? .....YEAH RIGHT!

So again it's like I said. when it suiots the NHL then they say "It's a business." when they want power and control...it's a club.They care about Money and Power... many of thier actions over the last 20 years show me they care nothing for the fans. They pay good lip service to us, but at the end of the day they treat the fans like crap. TSE might be one of the very few to be different.....but then again the Oilers fans thought that as well.
Do you even understand the Oilers dilemma at all?

EpicGingy is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 07:48 AM
  #512
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Another thing.
If “business is business” then why doesn’t Jim Balsile own a team in Hamilton? Like hate or indifferent to Balsilie as a person, or businessman, He had the cash, had a legal right to purchase. Moyse Declared Bankruptcy, Balsilie made the best offer to purchase the asset available. If business was business Hamilton would have a team right now. But no, when the NHL owners want to maintain control, and power…Suddenly it’s not business. Suddenly it’s an exclusive club where only privileged citizens with the right friends can join. Just like when they yanked the Jets out of Winnipeg the first time
You clearly have a chip on your shoulder the size of the moon and I see no point in attempting to continue this discussion.

The ownership statement is clearly not what I meant about business is business, but you can continue the discussion that way If you like...

Grind is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 09:05 AM
  #513
buggs
Registered User
 
buggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: flatlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 635
Approaches and niceties aside, the main difference between Balsillie and TNSE was Buffalo. What? Balsillie wanted his team in Hamilton, had the money and tried to bulldoze his way through the process. Great, except that putting a team in Hamilton/Markham/Toronto proper will have negative impacts on the Buffalo market that draws strongly on Southern Ontario. Putting another team in Toronto/Markham maybe doesn't kill the Buffalo market but putting one in Hamilton does.

So to the NHL BOG, allowing that team into Hamilton means that they've saved the ailing franchise that Balsillie wanted (Phoenix) but just created another ailing franchise problem in Buffalo. Business is business with respect to Hamilton and Balsillie simply because the NHL looked at the big picture of the league's health and said nope, not going to create a problem in one place just to solve a problem in another place. And maybe putting a team in Hamilton slightly devalues the Leafs, though I think the net effect would end up being zero overall.

Winnipeg on the other hand? What's around here? Nothin'. If anything we'll benefit the next closest market because Winnipeggers are crazy about going to the Twin Cities and having a hockey game to go to with our team there and shopping and duty free booze? We're all in on that and the Wild get an additional 2000-3000 tickets sold for a couple of games (assuming we end up in the same division). That's a win for Winnipeg, a win for the Wild and a win for the NHL.

buggs is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 09:15 AM
  #514
ps241
HFBoards Sponsor
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicGingy View Post
Do you even understand the Oilers dilemma at all?
Who needs the details EpicGingy all you really need to know is, to quote Skidooboy: "all owners are scum"!

ps241 is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 12:15 PM
  #515
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
sure Whereas your argument has been "the greedy,overpaid players are the bad guys here."

All i'm saying is The owners have been as a general rule, historicaly untrustworthy. They have even been out and out criminal in the past.

So when confronted by a situation like we have today with a lockout, the Oilers, Pheonix, florida, Columbus, and all of the other stuff happening in the league you argue that it all has to come down to the players taking it on the chin.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 12:32 PM
  #516
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
My arguments about ballsile and Pheonix are not about he specifics. Thy are simply to illistrate that when the owners are , to a point, lying when they go on TV and say over and over and over again "The NHL is a business" In point of fact the pheonix situation would never be allowed to continue like it has if it was "a normal business" Never. it would have been sold or folded by now.

get it? it's an example of the duality of the owners arguments. It illustrates the 2 sided way in wich they opperate the league. It highlights the differences between statments and actions. I don't care if it is right wrong, illegal, legal, fair, unfair, whatever.

The two things you can count on the NHL owners to be are inconsitent and greedy. which is what I have been trying to say.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 01:21 PM
  #517
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
sure Whereas your argument has been "the greedy,overpaid players are the bad guys here."

All i'm saying is The owners have been as a general rule, historicaly untrustworthy. They have even been out and out criminal in the past.

So when confronted by a situation like we have today with a lockout, the Oilers, Pheonix, florida, Columbus, and all of the other stuff happening in the league you argue that it all has to come down to the players taking it on the chin.
Please, show me ONE quote where somebody are calling the players "bad guys"? Go on. You are straw manning the arguments to fit some point about the owners being "scum". I see other people putting together well thought out arguments, meanwhile you come back with random one off throwbacks and declare wide sweeping statements.

Both sides are trying to secure the best deal for themselves, both in the CBA talks and in potential EDM rink deal. Both so far are using VERY standard negotiating methods. I don't understand where the problem is. Seattle just got approval for a rink, for ALL WE KNOW Katz was there to talk the Hansen, to understand how he got his deal done.

What "stuff" is happening in Florida and Columbus? Phoenix situation is very unique, and yes the league maintains the right to protect franchise locations. It's part of the agreement of joining the NHL, much like agreeing to the rules here at hfboards is part of joining. NHL does not operate as a completely independent 30 businesses, they cannot afford to. It's the way works, the way it has to work. There is a very easily recognizable reason why the league has fought so hard for PHO, and it's tied directly into the Oiler situation, and is actually for the benefit of the city and fans down there. But you don't want to hear that, you want to hear how the owners are crooks. Just because it does not operate as 30 independent businesses (has a CBA, membership requirements) means...it's a business to you? How do you suggest they go forward. Abandon the CBA, abandon all rules, make it a free for all? Did you ever think that they have a reason for operating as they do, much like EVERY OTHER PRO SPORTS LEAGUE ON THE PLANET OPERATES!


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 09-26-2012 at 01:34 PM.
Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 01:46 PM
  #518
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitbulI View Post
When I read that a couple Jets with 2 way contracts were sent to the Ice Caps, I also read that Scheifele was sent back to Barrie.

Does this mean that he's with Barrie now for an entire season or can he be called up for up to 10 games again for the Jets if say the season were actually played at some point this year or early next year?
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...-lockout-ends/

In short, Scheifele is the only Jets player on the list submitted to the league so that they can be called up to a mid-season TC, contingent on the season starting in a timely manner. Does not mean he will be, but that he can be recalled.

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 06:13 PM
  #519
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
The problem imo ss that the players want a 'better" deal and to gain ground whereas historic trend (nfl and nba) would say the beat they can hope for is mitigated losses. Fehr is approaching this with a non negotiable that is too far from the precedent to come off as anything short of unreasonable.

The fact that the nhl wont play under the current cba should make it obvious that a reduction in salary is non negotiable in their eyes.

The fact that the nhl has come considerably from there albeit ghastly initial offer and the pa has stood pat has dedinitly pushed.me 100 percent to the owners side.
@ Holden I can find more in the thread is just the first one I came across.

I'm not sure why you have to tell me I'm being the thick one here. I initially said that anyone who blames the players here is being silly because the players were being asked to rollback on contracts they had allready signed and that was bad faith from the owners.

you called the wage rollback a myth... then just a few short posts later you admitted there was an offer that would have ment a rollback. I presented an article written by a reputable reporter agreeing with my evaluation. You countered by saying the article was "old". Older than never? Because you said never.... As recently as last week the word rollback was being discussed on TV and in the press.

Re Owners. I have made many solid arguments. I have shown that the hypocrisy of offering Huge multiyear contracts mere days before a lockout with a demand for player expenditure reductions. I have shown the hipocrisy of Owners saying over and over "it's a business" while showing over and over again that " best business practices " are rarely if ever followed. I really don't want to get into the Pheonix thread but I am probably as aware of all it's nuances as you are. Again I don't care about the specifics I am using it as an example of a duality in the way the BOG behaves between franchises.


ANNNNDDDDD then right in the middle of this.....The Oilers issue blows up where a BILLIONAIRE renegs on an agreement and threatens to leave town unless the taxpayers of the city sweeten the pot......

Historicaly the NHL has had many owners who behaved like scum. Ballard. The Atlanta fans have repeatedly blamed thier owners for failing the marketplace, Pheonix fans call Moyse all kinds of names... Members of the BOG have been under endightment for fraud. John Sipo, Bruce McNall etc. etc.... the list goes on.


So really. am I the one who has no argument?

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 06:40 PM
  #520
EpicGingy
Registered User
 
EpicGingy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,417
vCash: 50
Yes, you are, since everybody has come up with a good counter-argument.

And why shouldn't someone be on the owners side? I agree it's a bit hypocritical that they want to have salary rollbacks when they're handing out these big contracts, but you only need 1 person to drive up the price for everybody in this league. The owners need protection from themselves.

Besides, the owners have actually been making progress with their offers, which while not perfect are still better than their first offer. While the PA didn't start negotiations until the playoffs were over (when the league offered to begin negotiating a fair bit ago), and their 2 "Creative" deals weren't fixing anything.

I don't always pick sides, but when I do, I pick the owners 2 lockouts in a row.

EpicGingy is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 06:51 PM
  #521
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicGingy View Post
Yes, you are, since everybody has come up with a good counter-argument.

And why shouldn't someone be on the owners side? I agree it's a bit hypocritical that they want to have salary rollbacks when they're handing out these big contracts, but you only need 1 person to drive up the price for everybody in this league. The owners need protection from themselves.

Besides, the owners have actually been making progress with their offers, which while not perfect are still better than their first offer. While the PA didn't start negotiations until the playoffs were over (when the league offered to begin negotiating a fair bit ago), and their 2 "Creative" deals weren't fixing anything.

I don't always pick sides, but when I do, I pick the owners 2 lockouts in a row.

Well I guess we are here to have a discussion. So i'm discussing. And some of the counter arguments have, to be frank, not been very good.

And a system that protects the owners from themselves is what the players want. They have said from the begining that the Owners are trying to tweak a system that doesn't work not then not now not ever. I agree. I think a price slashand a few percent here or there isn't going to do a thing and we will be back here in 4 or 5 years. I think the system needs to be fixed and fixed properly. The players have agreed to a limit on future contracts but want the owners to be on the hook for the current contracts as is. and that is why there is a lockout.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 07:06 PM
  #522
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
@ Holden I can find more in the thread is just the first one I came across.
Point proven. People are on one side or other. People are basing their decisions based on the available facts. Nobody is going out and painting every single person on one side or the other as "bad guys" or "scum".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
I'm not sure why you have to tell me I'm being the thick one here. I initially said that anyone who blames the players here is being silly because the players were being asked to rollback on contracts they had allready signed and that was bad faith from the owners.


you called the wage rollback a myth... then just a few short posts later you admitted there was an offer that would have ment a rollback. I presented an article written by a reputable reporter agreeing with my evaluation. You countered by saying the article was "old". Older than never? Because you said never.... As recently as last week the word rollback was being discussed on TV and in the press.
No I did not. Did you not read the posts? The word rollback has been thrown by the press and media, since the players are pushing it. Yet it does not exist. I said there has never been an offer which rolls back the contracts. Which is completely true.

Yes, players may have lost a percent or two in escrow. That is completely different. There is a vast difference between escrow and rollback. A rollback takes back existing contracts. In escrow, if the revenues grow AS THE PLAYERS HAVE SAID THEY will, even with the intial offer, which was well known as an "ideal" first contract not to be taken seriously, they would have lost like 3-4%. With the current offers they would come out even or ahead. If you use more realistic growth figures, they might still be down a percent or two, but easily negotiable as the owners have shown. But it is not a rollback. It means they put the money they already do put in escrow and wait for the accounting on the year to come in, and MAYBE don't see some of that money back. Vast difference. Clearly they don't care that much about the escrow since they have failed to collect all of the escrow every single year to push the cap higher since 2005.

Here's one example.

http://themccabechronicles.blogspot.....html?spref=tw

Somebody that distrust every word out of the owner takes everything the media says at face value?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Re Owners. I have made many solid arguments. I have shown that the hypocrisy of offering Huge multiyear contracts mere days before a lockout with a demand for player expenditure reductions. I have shown the hipocrisy of Owners saying over and over "it's a business" while showing over and over again that " best business practices " are rarely if ever followed. I really don't want to get into the Pheonix thread but I am probably as aware of all it's nuances as you are. Again I don't care about the specifics I am using it as an example of a duality in the way the BOG behaves between franchises.
Haha, they are following the best business practices. If you don't want to go into it, that's your issue, but it's not hypocritical to call it a business then do what's best for the business. What's best for business OF THE NHL is too keep the team in PHO right now, want to me to explain why? Of course not, since then it wouldn't be hypocritical. There is an inherent need for an entity like the NHL to work as 1 group at times, as 30 seperate entities at others. It is not hypocritical, it is the nature of NA professional sports.

You realize how small those contracts are in the long run right? And that they would have had to get done anyways?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
ANNNNDDDDD then right in the middle of this.....The Oilers issue blows up where a BILLIONAIRE renegs on an agreement and threatens to leave town unless the taxpayers of the city sweeten the pot......
Don't think anyone is per se defending what Katz is doing with regards to reneging on a deal. But he is trying to get the best deal he can. Since he is a billionaire he should just accept everything and pay for it all...he wouldn't be a billionaire if he did. Agreed that the reneging on a deal is reprehensible, but going to SEA is just common practice. It could be for many reasons, and yes one of the those reasons is to pressure Edmonton City Council. It's part of negotiation, try to gain leverage. Standard business practices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Historicaly the NHL has had many owners who behaved like scum. Ballard. The Atlanta fans have repeatedly blamed thier owners for failing the marketplace, Pheonix fans call Moyse all kinds of names... Members of the BOG have been under endightment for fraud. John Sipo, Bruce McNall etc. etc.... the list goes on.
Cool. Terrible owners. Good point. Proves what? That there has been bad owners? What about how Iltich has turned around the Dead Wings. Or how MLSE built an empire out of the Leafs and ACC. Or the new Owner in DAL has them turned around in less than a year? I don't get the point of that. Some owners are bad. Some are good. Some players are bad. Some players are good. Some PA people are bad (Eagleson anyone?, worst crook in the history of hockey). Some are good. Trying to make an argument about humanity?


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 09-26-2012 at 07:12 PM.
Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 07:54 PM
  #523
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Well you have a blogger who says a bunch about where he worked, tho provides no sources, no names, just his academic CV. Heck I have one of those. maybe not as good as his but I have friends who have as good or better so i'm not impressed by that. presenting that source as a be all end all is questionable. I don't know who he is or what his affiliations are, or what his agenda is. All I see there is a random blogger whose opinion and "facts" are not particularly verifiable. So untill then i go with the slew of journalists i have read and seen on tv who have alll said in one way or another that a rollback is a sticking point. It is however possible you are right Come back with a better source I might chage my mind.



I admit Journalists don';t get everything right but I have yet to see a single owner come out in the press and say the players are lying to the public about that point. i have seen bettman make allkinds of sttments and allegations, i have never seen him say that the NHLPA is lying to the public.

You still havent addressed the fact that the Owners were out handing out HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CONTRACTS right before the lockout Knowing they were gonna change the deal(negotiating in bad faith). again not best practices might even be illegal.

Again. Good business is to sewer your brand by insulting and rippingoff your best customers? Or holding a gun to the taxpayers of a small near bankrupt city's heads? Or renegging on an already agreed upon deal? Or shutting the doors following the best ever tv ratings the league has ever seen, when your holy grail of League wishes is a National TV contract? Not my idea of a well run company.

Yes inform me of how the Pheonix deal is such a great idea for the Owners? It drags down league revenues, it costs the owners each millions in revenue sharing and annual operating expenses. Wait... I know... the fabled TV contract. The often described, wholeheartedly wished for, bragged about, hungered for, dragged about, laughed about, but never once seen NATIONAL TV CONTRACT(sparkly lights and angel song). Except any headway made on that contract could well be crushed by this lockout..
I guess it does help the owners establish a case for thier inability to profit on hockey but again that is hardly the players fault. I guess you also convieniently forget that the BOG has twice in the last 3 years come as close as 15 mins to moving the team....so the value of the team as a rocksolid, can't be lost franchise is questionable.


Your argument, which somewhat vindicates Katz, has been used to vilify balsillie in this thread several times. sooooo it kinda fails to impress me in anyway. it kinda enforces my opinion that the Owners aren't really playing this lockout on the up and up, but instead are manipulating things to get their way.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 08:02 PM
  #524
EpicGingy
Registered User
 
EpicGingy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,417
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
. again not best practices might even be illegal.



Yes inform me of how the Pheonix deal is such a great idea for the Owners? It drags down league revenues, it costs the owners each millions in revenue sharing and annual operating expenses.
Point 1: I'm not sure if you forgot the

Point 2: The way revenue sharing is operated, wouldn't the owners put the same amount of money into the pool anyways? It's not a good system. And I believe in this situation the league would have to pay a fee for removing them (although I could be completely wrong).

The tax payers of Glendale are paying money to keep the team in Phoenix, so there's another reason it hasn't moved yet.

EpicGingy is online now  
Old
09-26-2012, 08:16 PM
  #525
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
@ Holden I can find more in the thread is just the first one I came across.

I'm not sure why you have to tell me I'm being the thick one here. I initially said that anyone who blames the players here is being silly because the players were being asked to rollback on contracts they had allready signed and that was bad faith from the owners.

you called the wage rollback a myth... then just a few short posts later you admitted there was an offer that would have ment a rollback. I presented an article written by a reputable reporter agreeing with my evaluation. You countered by saying the article was "old". Older than never? Because you said never.... As recently as last week the word rollback was being discussed on TV and in the press.

Re Owners. I have made many solid arguments. I have shown that the hypocrisy of offering Huge multiyear contracts mere days before a lockout with a demand for player expenditure reductions. I have shown the hipocrisy of Owners saying over and over "it's a business" while showing over and over again that " best business practices " are rarely if ever followed. I really don't want to get into the Pheonix thread but I am probably as aware of all it's nuances as you are. Again I don't care about the specifics I am using it as an example of a duality in the way the BOG behaves between franchises.


ANNNNDDDDD then right in the middle of this.....The Oilers issue blows up where a BILLIONAIRE renegs on an agreement and threatens to leave town unless the taxpayers of the city sweeten the pot......

Historicaly the NHL has had many owners who behaved like scum. Ballard. The Atlanta fans have repeatedly blamed thier owners for failing the marketplace, Pheonix fans call Moyse all kinds of names... Members of the BOG have been under endightment for fraud. John Sipo, Bruce McNall etc. etc.... the list goes on.


So really. am I the one who has no argument?
Ski, you have made a ton of accusations and points for review. In fairness, some of them are not bad (even if I disagree on your reading of the facts).

I think that what gets some people upset - myself included - is when you make BLANKET characterizations about NHL OWNERS on a Winnipeg Jets board! Check me if I am wrong, but I don't ever remember anyone accusing Mark Chipman of being a crook, a *******, a robber baron - or whatever list you want to go on with.

This is a remarkable story where the fricken smallest, barren major locale has NHL Hockey back, and you want to throw our owners under the bus with all the other characters you don't like...not gonna fly with me. End of rant, one man's opinion

TCsmyth 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 10:12 PM.

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.