HFBoards

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

Lockout thread #2: mediation done - no progress

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2012, 10:24 AM
  #551
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. I guess I'm having trouble thinking of another product that many are practically trained from birth to enjoy and cheer for. It will obviously be different for some American markets, but hockey is ingrained too deeply in Canadians, and especially Edmontonians for anyone's petty "I'm done" declaration to actually take hold.
Like I've said before - the vast majority of people posting here will be back (I know I will). But we (posters on Oilers or other teams' message boards) are the vast minority of fans. We are all pretty hardcore fans. Not everyone is like that.

In fact, I know lots of friends that were pretty big hockey fans, followed it a lot, but after the last lockout they said F it, and haven't watched any hockey since (other than the odd game here and there and some playoffs).

That how I am with baseball - used to be a pretty big fan (nowhere near the level I am with hockey). I used to follow it pretty closely, but since the strike, I have never had anywhere near the same level of interest. And it's not a protest on my part or anything like that - I just lost interest. I'll watch the playoffs now, and that's about it.

I think THOSE are the fans that hockey might lose a lot of.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:28 AM
  #552
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Not sure why any fans reaction or preference would be considered "petty". You might think it knee jerk which is fine but nothing wrong with someone wanting to choose abstinence.

Also, consider that theres varying degrees of support. The labor impasses of 94, 2004, and now, have taught me to care less about the NHL, and its players, and this has impacted how I support the product. If the game happens to be televized on a channel I get anyway I watch. I don't pay extra for anything, don't buy tickets, and don't buy merchandise from source. This IS changed behavior. A lot of fans, and probably more than gets recognized, have changed their behavior. But with fans that tune out the product being somewhat drowned out by new fans to the game. Which happens in Canada anyway because we are in the middle of an unprecedented boom in population from combined immigration and increase in birth rates.

But interestingly in a country with nearly twice the population we had in the 60's or 70's roughly the same amount of Canadians are going to NHL games in respective NHL cities. This of course being limited by rink capacity but look at it this way. In 1970 17K Canucks fans would be going to games. Would 34-40K Vancouver fans be going to every homegame today if capacity allowed? In a metropolitan area that has MORE than doubled in population?

A growing segment of Canadians have become less interested in actually attending NHL games. This maybe a byproduct of hdtv and surround systems and beer fridges simply offering a better viewing experience. Or that the degree of peoples connection has been reduced to a tenuous and fleeting stop on a channel in a hundreds of channels universe. With the NHL hanging by a thread for many who are increasingly experiencing simply better, and varied, entertainment.
Would anyone go to a 35,000 seat stadium to watch hockey from the top row on a weekly basis?

The idea that this lockout will have long term negative effects on viewership or attendance is not based on any historical fact or figure.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:36 AM
  #553
OilerNut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
You're largely missing the point

Put every player on the street and have them negotiate with each team via an agent and see what kind of deals they end up with.

Better or worse??

That's my point the collective bargaining is for the owners benefit in professional sports.

What are the players gaining from it?
Well it would probably be like the 50s 60s where player salaries aren't public so players won't have anything to bargain against also there would probably be less concern about head injuries and stuff.

OilerNut* is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:37 AM
  #554
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Lots of those teams that lost money was either through their own stupidity I.E. Buffalo or the team is in a poor market I.E. Phoenix
Some. But others like Pittsburgh, Minnesota are losing money. Calgary and Ottawa barely break even. Bump the cap and floor up a bit and the loonie down a couple of cents, and they'd be in the red too.

I do have a question on those Forbes numbers - are those numbers inclusive of all the owners' revenue? I'm guessing it isn't - so a lot of these teams in the red get in the black because of non HRR stuff like concerts and whatever, right?

Not that that makes it OK - I believe a franchise should be able to turn a profit in its own operations.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:47 AM
  #555
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
I thought it was the other way around and if the owners would've accepted the players last offer last time that the cap would've been substantial less than it is now.
Sorry - you're right (mostly). Initially, the NHL insisted on a cap linked to revenues because they didn't know what the damage caused by the lockout would do to HRR. But the NHL's final offer before the season was cancelled was a $44.7M ($42.5M in salary, $2.2M in benefits) "delinked" cap.

For some reason I only remembered that last offer. I bet the owners would love a $45M delinked cap now!

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:49 AM
  #556
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,287
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Some. But others like Pittsburgh, Minnesota are losing money. Calgary and Ottawa barely break even. Bump the cap and floor up a bit and the loonie down a couple of cents, and they'd be in the red too.

I do have a question on those Forbes numbers - are those numbers inclusive of all the owners' revenue? I'm guessing it isn't - so a lot of these teams in the red get in the black because of non HRR stuff like concerts and whatever, right?

Not that that makes it OK - I believe a franchise should be able to turn a profit in its own operations.
Is it a shock CGY is losing money? Minny, while I would've cared 5 months ago they can pretty much **** off as they made things worse this summer. Pitts is a bit shocking as is Ott, but then again Ott lost money not that long ago simple because of front loaded contracts.

Granted there needs to be some shift of revenues from players to owners, I really don't think that shifting the money is going to make all that much difference in a couple years. Is giving each team 5 or 10 mil going to go into the pocket of the owner or are they just going to increases their expenses?

Too much focus on this 50/50 split IMO.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:58 AM
  #557
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Too much focus on this 50/50 split IMO.
Looking at the numbers I agree. I mean even if the get to a real 50/50, but revenues balloon to $4B, at 50/50 the floor would be $50.7M (cap of $66.7M)

19 teams had $100M or less in total revenue - good luck making money for teams like the Isles ($63M), Coyotes ($70M), and Jets ($71M) when you're paying out over $50M MINIMUM. And how many years can you pay minimum salary and still fill the stands? My guess is other than Toronto, Edmonton, and Montreal, not many fanbases would support that.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:59 AM
  #558
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,886
vCash: 777
The Jets made way more then 71 million in revenue last year

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:05 AM
  #559
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
The Jets made way more then 71 million in revenue last year
How much did they make? I'm just using this, which I assume now was Atlanta numbers from 2011.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_3_s_a0_

But either way - what's your point? Just that one of the figures I posted was incorrect, or was it something else?

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:14 AM
  #560
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,886
vCash: 777
Those were Atlanta numbers

The generally idea that Teams "lose money" might be a fundamentally wrong argument as well.

Most of these teams have an entire small industry built around the arena's. That is what Katz wants to do in Edmonton btw.

Winnipeg is doing the same thing now as well. Yes the team may lose money but everything around it is making money and lots of it.

Why do you think the city of Glendale is dying to keep that team there? Because they want all those people down at that mall 40 times a year and hopefully those people return on non game nights and they usually do.

The MTS Center for instance was making gobs of money before the Jets came back. Business like Bars and restaurants around it were starting to pop up. I can imagine how much money they are losing right now because of no hockey. Those places were full of people ordering the 17 dollar burger and drinking 8 dollar pints of beer.

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:15 AM
  #561
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,287
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Looking at the numbers I agree. I mean even if the get to a real 50/50, but revenues balloon to $4B, at 50/50 the floor would be $50.7M (cap of $66.7M)

19 teams had $100M or less in total revenue - good luck making money for teams like the Isles ($63M), Coyotes ($70M), and Jets ($71M) when you're paying out over $50M MINIMUM. And how many years can you pay minimum salary and still fill the stands? My guess is other than Toronto, Edmonton, and Montreal, not many fanbases would support that.
Isles probably would make more if they were ran better. Wang doesn't seem to care too much about the Isles as much as he does the lighthouse project. Be curious to see what happens when they move to Brooklyn.

Phoenix will they ever make money?

Jets, they'll always be a team that will be playing with a lower source of ticket revenue, but they knew this coming in so really what can you do.


It's odd, you give examples I look at them and then wonder what exactly can be done to satisfy everyone. 3 teams Isles, Yotes and Jets. Each one of them have a distinct difference in why they are or could lose money.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:19 AM
  #562
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,287
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
Those were Atlanta numbers

The generally idea that Teams "lose money" might be a fundamentally wrong argument as well.

Most of these teams have an entire small industry built around the arena's. That is what Katz wants to do in Edmonton btw.

Winnipeg is doing the same thing now as well. Yes the team may lose money but everything around it is making money and lots of it.

Why do you think the city of Glendale is dying to keep that team there? Because they want all those people down at that mall 40 times a year and hopefully those people return on non game nights and they usually do.

The MTS Center for instance was making gobs of money before the Jets came back. Business like Bars and restaurants around it were starting to pop up. I can imagine how much money they are losing right now because of no hockey. Those places were full of people ordering the 17 dollar burger and drinking 8 dollar pints of beer.
Do owners really care if the Diesel ultra lounge is making money? Yes the City of Glendale wants to keep the team there, but that's a whole new ball game.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:21 AM
  #563
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,886
vCash: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Do owners really care if the Diesel ultra lounge is making money? Yes the City of Glendale wants to keep the team there, but that's a whole new ball game.
If they own the Diesel ultra lounge then yes they do

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:22 AM
  #564
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,855
vCash: 500
http://es.pn/T7d8xL
Good read. Read it.

402 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:25 AM
  #565
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,287
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
If they own the Diesel ultra lounge then yes they do
So how many owners own million dollar businesses around arenas?

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:27 AM
  #566
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,886
vCash: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
So how many owners own million dollar businesses around arenas?
Thats a good question and something that isn't easy to find out as most owners who are that rich tend to own a great deal and are not to eager to share exactly what they own.

But if you use Katz as an example with his complex idea you get the drift of why hockey based revenue isn't the end all and be all of this whole thing.

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:38 AM
  #567
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,287
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
Thats a good question and something that isn't easy to find out as most owners who are that rich tend to own a great deal and are not to eager to share exactly what they own.

But if you use Katz as an example with his complex idea you get the drift of why hockey based revenue isn't the end all and be all of this whole thing.
That's because Katz wants all the arena revenue. Is he going to own the Denny's, Esso station, 7-11 etc.. that end up around the new complex?

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:43 AM
  #568
GO99
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GO99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 50
Yup. I am on the owners side, but int he end we do not know how much teams really lose or make. We don't know what they write off, how much they write off, what the exact rules are for writing hockey related revenues off. Unless we got to go through their books with a thorough look, we don't really know.

This is where the players have a beef as well. In the end the owners are owners and the players are players. They should be happy making all that moolah. They shouldn't get bent over, but in the end they should just take a step back, remember what they do for a living, and be a little thankful.

GO99 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:59 AM
  #569
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,886
vCash: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
Yup. I am on the owners side, but int he end we do not know how much teams really lose or make. We don't know what they write off, how much they write off, what the exact rules are for writing hockey related revenues off. Unless we got to go through their books with a thorough look, we don't really know.

This is where the players have a beef as well. In the end the owners are owners and the players are players. They should be happy making all that moolah. They shouldn't get bent over, but in the end they should just take a step back, remember what they do for a living, and be a little thankful.
I just don't agree with this way of thinking at all. If you don't stand up and fight for what you believe people will just roll right over you

Less then 30 years ago players were virtual slaves to the system Owners had in place if they had the attitude of just being thankful for having a job playing hockey they would still be in that same system.

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:05 PM
  #570
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
They seemed to have figured out that the media will give them more positive press if they at least make it look like they are trying. Change the wording around a bit and pretend its a new thoughtful proposal. Really all they are doing is switching from the treadmill to the stationary bike with this proposal. It isn't actually going anywhere.
Considering how many idiots there are in the media who apparently can't do math - I'm not surprised. Former players like Aaron Ward, Jason Strudwick, Kevin Weekes have thought that each of the PA offers were "substantial" offers and couldn't understand why the Owners didn't just accept each one. Listening to them, I could tell that none of them understood the actual details of the proposals.

Just last night on 630, Ian Mendes voiced the opinion that the PA was winning the so called PR battle and that this would make all the difference in the world to the owners. Um no - when you're an owner of a team and losing $5 million per season - would you really care what Ian Mendes or Aaron Ward thinks?

Its like these sports reporters didn't take math in school or something.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:06 PM
  #571
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
I just don't agree with this way of thinking at all. If you don't stand up and fight for what you believe people will just roll right over you

Less then 30 years ago players were virtual slaves to the system Owners had in place if they had the attitude of just being thankful for having a job playing hockey they would still be in that same system.
But its not 30 years ago. The imbalance that was existent back then has absolutely no bearing on the CBA negotiations of today.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:09 PM
  #572
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
Those were Atlanta numbers

The generally idea that Teams "lose money" might be a fundamentally wrong argument as well.

Most of these teams have an entire small industry built around the arena's. That is what Katz wants to do in Edmonton btw.

Winnipeg is doing the same thing now as well. Yes the team may lose money but everything around it is making money and lots of it.

Why do you think the city of Glendale is dying to keep that team there? Because they want all those people down at that mall 40 times a year and hopefully those people return on non game nights and they usually do.

The MTS Center for instance was making gobs of money before the Jets came back. Business like Bars and restaurants around it were starting to pop up. I can imagine how much money they are losing right now because of no hockey. Those places were full of people ordering the 17 dollar burger and drinking 8 dollar pints of beer.
Interestingly MTS Pollstar numbers and tickets sold for MTS concerts are significantly down. Which can suggest the following:

1)That theres a finite amount of disposable bucks for arena entertainment in Winnipeg.
2)That Hockey nights mays be impacting this but then again the available event nights are exactly the same afairc. Didn't the Manitoba Moose exit as soon as the Jets came back?
3)AS in the case with a lot of new arena's a novelty factor may be at work where people just like attending events at the facility for awhile. This novelty factor often wearing off within 5-10yrs at which more baseline sustained attendance results are typically seen.
I always tend to blow off any assessments made in first 5-10 years of operation as they don't project well into what more typical longterm support will be.

Replacement is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:13 PM
  #573
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
Considering how many idiots there are in the media who apparently can't do math - I'm not surprised. Former players like Aaron Ward, Jason Strudwick, Kevin Weekes have thought that each of the PA offers were "substantial" offers and couldn't understand why the Owners didn't just accept each one. Listening to them, I could tell that none of them understood the actual details of the proposals.

Just last night on 630, Ian Mendes voiced the opinion that the PA was winning the so called PR battle and that this would make all the difference in the world to the owners. Um no - when you're an owner of a team and losing $5 million per season - would you really care what Ian Mendes or Aaron Ward thinks?

Its like these sports reporters didn't take math in school or something.
Kinda confirms my prior notion that there would be nothing interesting or revealing for me to tune into on any program Jason Strudwick is hosting.

What you refer to by Ian Mendes is another reason I tune out present day sports radio almost entirely. What an antiquated medium of information. I can just look up stuff myself and prefer to without trusting somebody elses vested opinion on the matter.

Replacement is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:14 PM
  #574
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,886
vCash: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
But its not 30 years ago. The imbalance that was existent back then has absolutely no bearing on the CBA negotiations of today.
No but the idea that you should be happy and roll over for whatever else someone wants is just as wrong.

It is astounding to me that people want the players to roll over for the owners. People seem to want to and are able to sympathize with a billionaire.

Well they are losing money they make no money you say. Yet how can you put a value of 150 million on a franchise like the Islanders or the Yotes? Because they don't tell you the total value of everything involved with owning the team. That should send bells ringing in peoples ears that perhaps just perhaps these owners are not as truthful as they would like you to believe.

It is also astounding that you have people in this thread side with the owners and call the players down like nothing yet post in the Katz arena thread calling him a crook at the same time. What the hell is that? Either these owners are saints trying to save the game we all love because they love it like we do or they are the lying sobs trying to gouge as much money as they can from us.

So which one is it then?

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:19 PM
  #575
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
But its not 30 years ago. The imbalance that was existent back then has absolutely no bearing on the CBA negotiations of today.
Exactly and the imbalance that existed back then was corrected and players are now making money hand over fist with absolutely no risk other than gettng injured and having their career end.

The fact that the idiot players can't make this connection today is mind boggling. Players saying why should they be concerned that Columbus or Phoenix are bad teams for the league and that it's not their problem and tha tit's the NHL and owners problem are complete idiots. Here's a solution for those dumbasses:

Goodbye Phoenix, goodbye Columbus, goodbye Biznasty to goodbye Horcoff.

Reimer 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 01:04 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.