HFBoards

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

Pro: Owners or Players?

View Poll Results: Players or Owners?
NHLPA: No cap 29 58.00%
Owners: Cost certainty (Cap) 21 42.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2005, 11:17 PM
  #1
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Pro: Owners or Players?

Who are you guys supporting in this...

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-15-2005, 11:21 PM
  #2
Zeus54
Trollololol
 
Zeus54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: on tilt
Posts: 6,310
vCash: 500
The owners...

Zeus54 is offline  
Old
01-15-2005, 11:23 PM
  #3
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Need to find a medium... but the NHL has to relax here

Barnaby is offline  
Old
01-15-2005, 11:31 PM
  #4
RangersFan
Registered User
 
RangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: LA, CA & NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 7,210
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangersFan Send a message via MSN to RangersFan
The reason I am against the owners and Bettman is cause they won't even compromise. It's either their way or no way, which in a major dispute will never work. I wouldn't mind a cap, but the way they went about it makes me angry. At least the players are willing to compromise, I thought their 24% rollback was a good first start at negotiating, but the NHL was simply, NO! Their hard line stance is rediculous, their take it or leave it offer to the union definitely put me on the players side. No way if I was a player would I have accepted it, they pretty much offered it knowing the players would reject it, thus guarantee a lockout...

RangersFan is offline  
Old
01-15-2005, 11:44 PM
  #5
Onion Boy
Registered User
 
Onion Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Japan
Posts: 2,681
vCash: 500
I voted NHLPA because I don't believe in a hard cap. A luxury I would be in favor of and I think the players would as well.

Onion Boy is offline  
Old
01-15-2005, 11:51 PM
  #6
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
There has to be another choice for Neither. It's pretty obvious that Bettman and Goodenow deserve each other. They stink and are the reason a deal won't get done because they're too busy with their egos thinking about themselve$!!!!!!

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 12:06 AM
  #7
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
There has to be another choice for Neither. It's pretty obvious that Bettman and Goodenow deserve each other. They stink and are the reason a deal won't get done because they're too busy with their egos thinking about themselve$!!!!!!
Youre right, i should have put a neither. Sorry about that

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 12:25 AM
  #8
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
There has to be another choice for Neither. It's pretty obvious that Bettman and Goodenow deserve each other. They stink and are the reason a deal won't get done because they're too busy with their egos thinking about themselve$!!!!!!
Neither of them are bigger than the game. Eventually someone will step in and remind these Bozo's. But not this year, this season is a wash, most hockey people have known this for sometime. The rest is ALL posturing and saying the right things.

In the end, both sides will compromise, thats whats so frustrating.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 12:34 AM
  #9
Theoren Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,535
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Theoren Fan
I'm starting to have my doubts if a Cap would do anything but just make all 30 teams mediocre. How is a hard luxury tax not the best option? What about capping player salaries instead of the teams like TSN suggested? Personally, these all seem like better ideas.

Theoren Fan is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 12:39 AM
  #10
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo Fan
I'm starting to have my doubts if a Cap would do anything but just make all 30 teams mediocre. How is a hard luxury tax not the best option? What about capping player salaries instead of the teams like TSN suggested? Personally, these all seem like better ideas.
You know, all though i see the idea behind a cap...i actually hate how football is. I like seeing dynasties, i dont like seeing new teams win every year, and i dont like seeing teams totally different every year, with all different players because the cap wont allow you to resign your own players. Im starting to change my opinion now...

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 01:29 AM
  #11
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangersFan
The reason I am against the owners and Bettman is cause they won't even compromise. It's either their way or no way, which in a major dispute will never work. I wouldn't mind a cap, but the way they went about it makes me angry. At least the players are willing to compromise, I thought their 24% rollback was a good first start at negotiating, but the NHL was simply, NO! Their hard line stance is rediculous, their take it or leave it offer to the union definitely put me on the players side. No way if I was a player would I have accepted it, they pretty much offered it knowing the players would reject it, thus guarantee a lockout...

Gotta agree with most of this. I know there has to be a middle ground somewhere but the NHL's stance has just about made me vomit repeatedly. Their starting block is the same as their what they want to finish with. That makes absolutely no sense. The NHLPA has put forth several reccomendations and Bettman and his minions have come back with "No we need salary cap". That's not how you negotiate at all.

I can't honestly side with either side but I have an easier time swallowing what the NHLPA is trying to feed (regardless of how PR the moves are). They're at least trying to put something forth, while the NHL has done nothing.

Of course my view could be skeewed a bit by my hatred for Bettman and everything he's done to the NHL. After all he was the one that negotiated this CBA 10 years ago. He expanded the NHL.

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 01:32 AM
  #12
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,186
vCash: 500
Players from the start...but with the Goodenow latest rumor saying he told players not to expect hockey for at least another year and a half I have re-thought it. Supporting niether could be my choice down the line, but at the moment the Players.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 01:49 AM
  #13
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Players from the start...but with the Goodenow latest rumor saying he told players not to expect hockey for at least another year and a half I have re-thought it. Supporting niether could be my choice down the line, but at the moment the Players.
both sides are pathetic, thats what it comes down to.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 02:31 AM
  #14
Burberry Manning
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Summit NJ-The Elite
Country: United States
Posts: 2,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
You know, all though i see the idea behind a cap...i actually hate how football is. I like seeing dynasties, i dont like seeing new teams win every year, and i dont like seeing teams totally different every year, with all different players because the cap wont allow you to resign your own players. Im starting to change my opinion now...
Like the Rams, Patriots, and Eagles? Those types of dynasties? Since the NFL has had a salary cap we have seen a select few teams remain in power for a long time. We have seen those dynasties. What we haven't seen are teams that have no chance to succeed even before the season starts, like the NHL. Money isn't an issue in the NFL anymore but it remains to be the key issue with hockey and thats the problem. No one looks at the Panthers or 49ers and sees an organization in despair with no hope for revival. But we look at the Penguins, the Oilers, and the Predators and see teams in a struggle to pull even because of monetary problems. No, there hasn't been a team that won the Super Bowl 5 times in a row but IMO that's good for the sport. It's easy for us as Ranger fans to support the players and to fall for the notion of dynasties because we have a solid financial base and unlimited rescources. How fun is for the Carolina fan who sees the Flyers roll off 3 straight Cup victories, knowing deep down that his team will never have a chance to come close to that because one line on that team makes more money then the entire Hurricane team? It's problems like this that will only continue to hinder the NHL's marketablilty in the USA and continue hockey's slide into a second class sport.
Just compare the ratings of last year's NHL season and last year's NFL season. The overwhelming majority cant be wrong.

Burberry Manning is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 03:13 AM
  #15
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Owners, though at this point I think hockey is screwed either way.

The sport has mismanaged for too long and it's window of opportunity has long since passed.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 07:15 AM
  #16
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
We did this poll..

a while back...with all the debating, it seems as though none of us have changed our minds, but we've all grown apathetic to NHL hockey at this point and are disgusted overall.

Fletch is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 01:29 PM
  #17
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
a while back...with all the debating, it seems as though none of us have changed our minds, but we've all grown apathetic to NHL hockey at this point and are disgusted overall.
Yep, absolutely.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 01:38 PM
  #18
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,430
vCash: 500
Parity in the NHL is only going to be realized

by having a system in place that limits one ability to out spend the oppossition.

Without having a system in place that will totally prebvent that, the league will not be equally competitive for teams that cannot generate the same amounts of revenue.

The system in place is not a fair one and the only way to change that is to cap the amounts a team can spend.

A luxury tax does nothing for teams with large revenue streamed teams. Not if the mandate is to win.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 02:03 PM
  #19
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Parity's not the question...

nor is it the desired end-result. It's about 90% about money. The parity question was thrown out the window when the Lightning beat Calgary to win the Stanley Cup, and as the Rangers continue to spend and lose (and even Washington to a certain extent).

Fletch is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 02:40 PM
  #20
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
nor is it the desired end-result. It's about 90% about money. The parity question was thrown out the window when the Lightning beat Calgary to win the Stanley Cup, and as the Rangers continue to spend and lose (and even Washington to a certain extent).
I just dont want a cap situation where we are unable to bring back players because their salaries would put us over the cap. That would be horrible.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 07:38 PM
  #21
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
by having a system in place that limits one ability to out spend the oppossition.

Without having a system in place that will totally prebvent that, the league will not be equally competitive for teams that cannot generate the same amounts of revenue.
How can you say that when the NHL has more parity than any of the other sports? Look at all of the different teams that make the playoffs every year. Look at all of the different teams that have played in the series that determines who plays for the Stanley Cup over the last 4 years.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 07:44 PM
  #22
TopOfTheWorld
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
I dont like the cap idea because the whole idea is to market the game, if a team like let's say just for arguments sake Columbus (i really have no idea what their attendance figures are like) cannot fill enough seats to make the kind of money to sign those big name players, why should teams like New York, Detroit, Toronto etc not be allowed to do so? The fans in those cities file into the arenas to see the stars shine, why should those teams suffer because theres teams in this league that in my opinion, dont even belong.

But another issue is the Canadian teams, most of them suffered most of their problems because of how low the Canadian dollar was. The fan support is awesome in Canada, yet because theyre paying your Naslunds and Sundins in American, but raking in Canadian dough, when it comes to a 6 million dollar contract, that 6 million Canadian is a LOT more in American. That's another issue they need to address because they can't lose more Canadian teams.

TopOfTheWorld is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 07:45 PM
  #23
TopOfTheWorld
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
And last time I checked, the two teams in the finals last year werent high payroll teams. I liked that, it was shocking, I happen to like underdogs and like cheering for them, a cap would even out teams, and I dont like it

TopOfTheWorld is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 07:46 PM
  #24
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopOfTheWorld
I dont like the cap idea because the whole idea is to market the game, if a team like let's say just for arguments sake Columbus (i really have no idea what their attendance figures are like) cannot fill enough seats to make the kind of money to sign those big name players, why should teams like New York, Detroit, Toronto etc not be allowed to do so? The fans in those cities file into the arenas to see the stars shine, why should those teams suffer because theres teams in this league that in my opinion, dont even belong.
its socialism at work. taking from the rich, giving to the poor, even though they havent earned a penny of it. its just a sports variety of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TopOfTheWorld
But another issue is the Canadian teams, most of them suffered most of their problems because of how low the Canadian dollar was. The fan support is awesome in Canada, yet because theyre paying your Naslunds and Sundins in American, but raking in Canadian dough, when it comes to a 6 million dollar contract, that 6 million Canadian is a LOT more in American. That's another issue they need to address because they can't lose more Canadian teams.
there should be a way to fix that...i just dont know how. all i know is it's killing canadian teams and thats not right.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-16-2005, 07:56 PM
  #25
TopOfTheWorld
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
I wouldnt have an issue with Canadian teams losing money because of attendance issues but no one can say that Canadians dont love hockey, to think that a city like Edmonton has almost lost its team before bothers me beyond imagination, to me those teams are the only ones not on fair grounds as everyone else FINANCIALLY. Small market teams in the states are on fair grounds, but take a team like New York, and lets say Toronto, both lets say sell 18 000 tickets. Both have same payroll, Toronto isnt making as much money as New York. Thats an issue.

TopOfTheWorld 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 02:41 AM.

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.