HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHL has lifted gag order

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2005, 02:12 AM
  #51
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Sounds like the NHL is getting desperate.

The interesting thing about the lifting of the gag order signals to me that the NHL has given up on the possibility of declaring a bargaining impasse and using replacement players. One of the major reasons for the gag order was to prevent NHL owners from saying anything that could later be used against the NHL position if before a labour board.

Recall how fast Bettman hammered Steve Belkin with a fine when he spoke out about the possibility of using replacement players several montha ago.

It seems to me the NHL has now decided that a bargaining impasse and replacement players are not a viable strategy.

No surprise given the difficulties in getting the impasse declaration past the NLRB, the fact there is no impasse procedure in Canada, the ban on replacement players in BC and Quebec and the problem that the NHL would have in filling the rosters given the immigration law constraints.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:12 AM
  #52
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blah
They both expire after the 05-06 season. You think the Pens are going to spend all of their cap space signing players this offseason?

One LeClair = three Mark Recchi's.

Last Year:
LeClair = 55 points (only 23 goals, almost $400,000 a goal)
Recchi = 75 points (26 goals)

We know how to spend our money.


Last edited by Jaded-Fan: 02-12-2005 at 02:23 AM.
Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:14 AM
  #53
craig1
Registered User
 
craig1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
Sounds like the NHL is getting desperate.
You did read the part about the owners not needing to dip into the warchest yet, correct?

If so, how do you see this as an act of desperation?

craig1 is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:22 AM
  #54
ResidentAlien*
Unregistered User
 
ResidentAlien*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1
You did read the part about the owners not needing to dip into the warchest yet, correct?

If so, how do you see this as an act of desperation?
Desperation is in the eye of the beholder, or observer in this case

ResidentAlien* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:27 AM
  #55
blah
Registered User
 
blah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
One LeClair = three Mark Recchi's.

We know how to spend our money.
9 mil/3 years on a 37 year old forward says otherwise.

Here's a nice example of a good signing: 3 mil/3 years on a 22 year old center from Pittsburgh. :lol

blah is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:32 AM
  #56
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1
You did read the part about the owners not needing to dip into the warchest yet, correct?

If so, how do you see this as an act of desperation?
According to this article some owners have dipped into the fund.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/natio...warchest050127

vanlady is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:35 AM
  #57
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blah
9 mil/3 years on a 37 year old forward says otherwise.

Here's a nice example of a good signing: 3 mil/3 years on a 22 year old center from Pittsburgh. :lol

Huh?

John LeClair, LW
Birthdate: 07/05/1969

Doesn't that = 36 years old? So now you are saying that 37 is too old for a $3 million a year player who scored 75 points last year, but we should jump all over a 36 year old player who scored 55 points and costs $9 million?

Yeah, you have me almost talked into that LeClair deal.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:43 AM
  #58
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
Huh?

John LeClair, LW
Birthdate: 07/05/1969

Doesn't that = 36 years old? So now you are saying that 37 is too old for a $3 million a year player who scored 75 points last year, but we should jump all over a 36 year old player who scored 55 points and costs $9 million?

Yeah, you have me almost talked into that LeClair deal.
Don't worry about questioning him anymore. He has already proved his GM skills are far superior. Actually I think he might be Mike Milbury.

kerrly is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 02:45 AM
  #59
blah
Registered User
 
blah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
lol. It'll come to you eventually.

btw, you keep using stats as if they tell the whole story. They don't. In actuality LeClair, Handzus, and Recchi had a lot to do w/ each other's point totals.

blah is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 03:07 AM
  #60
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1
You did read the part about the owners not needing to dip into the warchest yet, correct?

If so, how do you see this as an act of desperation?
You did read the part in my post about the NHL apparently giving up on an impasse declaration, correct?

If so, how do you not see this as an act of desperation?

Also if as is being reported the NHL wants owners to contact and pressure players to put pressure on Goodenow, that is an unfair labour practise. Employers cannot do this during a labour dispute.

Just more proof the NHL is not going the impasse/replacement player route.
Sounds pretty desperate to me. YMMV.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 03:26 AM
  #61
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1
You did read the part about the owners not needing to dip into the warchest yet, correct?

If so, how do you see this as an act of desperation?
You read the rest of his post right, where he explained that the NHL didn't want owners speaking and saying dumb things that might be used to indicate in front of the NHLRB that they were bargaining in bad faith?

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 03:50 AM
  #62
Oiler_Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
You read the rest of his post right, where he explained that the NHL didn't want owners speaking and saying dumb things that might be used to indicate in front of the NHLRB that they were bargaining in bad faith?
Except there have been many reasons pointed out why, unless the NHL is willing to set some serious legal precedents, they would never really plan to go in front of the NLRB--assuming you believe they have people knowledgeable and smart enough to understand the complexities of it on the NHL side I don't discount their willingness to set some legal precedence, but I suspect they aren't at all interested in doing this given the nature of labour law.

NHLRB, was that a subtle attempt at humor ?

Edit:
I agree with Wetcoaster that they are getting desperate--said that myself in another thread replying to Wetcoasters before I read his comment in this thread


Last edited by Oiler_Fan: 02-12-2005 at 03:58 AM.
Oiler_Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 07:38 AM
  #63
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
OK I have no symapathy for the Yotes or Tampa. They are right in the middle of the two largest snowbird populations in the world. A whole lot of retired Canadians with reasonably good disposible incomes and you can't sell hockey??? I mean have you seen the trailer parks surrounding Tampa that are nothing but retired Canadians?

So far I have only heard 2 teams that will lose less money, any one else that is credibly losing less money?
You blow the whole "trailer park" thing out of proportion. There aren't that many Canadians that go south anymore, and those that do don't spend wildly. Having lived in Tampa and presently living in Phoenix I can tell you that the trailer park crowd statement is pretty lame. Retirees don't buy many season tickets. They can't afford them. They prefer to put their money into something more important, like food and medical. If you're living in a trailer park you don't have much disposable income and if you do what is left over goes to more social activities like golf. Spending several thousand dollars on a single ticket is not in most senior's retirement budget.

And what do you consider a "credible" team when it comes to losing money? The defending Stanley Cup Champions not credible enough?





Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 07:43 AM
  #64
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
So far I have only heard 2 teams that will lose less money, any one else that is credibly losing less money?
Ottawa's said they are losing less money by not playing.

ceber is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 09:30 AM
  #65
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Ottawa's said they are losing less money by not playing.
Not credible enough. Unless it is Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, Colorado, Dallas or New York, then the source just isn't credible.



Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 09:34 AM
  #66
ResidentAlien*
Unregistered User
 
ResidentAlien*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
You blow the whole "trailer park" thing out of proportion. There aren't that many Canadians that go south anymore, and those that do don't spend wildly. Having lived in Tampa and presently living in Phoenix I can tell you that the trailer park crowd statement is pretty lame. Retirees don't buy many season tickets. They can't afford them. They prefer to put their money into something more important, like food and medical. If you're living in a trailer park you don't have much disposable income and if you do what is left over goes to more social activities like golf. Spending several thousand dollars on a single ticket is not in most senior's retirement budget.

And what do you consider a "credible" team when it comes to losing money? The defending Stanley Cup Champions not credible enough?




I concur- I also have lived in Tampa and Scottsdale AZ and have snowbird parents.
Food, Medical and money for Pinochle tournies...

ResidentAlien* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 09:59 AM
  #67
DontTouchMyDonskoi
4everFerkland
 
DontTouchMyDonskoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
what part of "the Penguins are fine and will not fold because of the lockout" don't people understand

not directed to you misterjaggers

they just got rid of most of their dept, via the courts

the jettisoned alot of payroll and played young players on purpose

they knew if a cap is to be put into place, it would be a buyers market and they will get deals on top notch players because all those big market teams cannot sign them

expect the Pens to sign 2 more big named free agents when this is over....if a bottom is put in place

if not they might wait, allow their kids to continue developing in the shorten season, get another great pick and bring Malkin, Fleury, Welch and Orpik along with Recchi, Mario and a couple FA's next season
i bet you were also one of those posters that said Kovalev would not be dealt for table scraps.

dr

DontTouchMyDonskoi is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:08 AM
  #68
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
i bet you were also one of those posters that said Kovalev would not be dealt for table scraps.

dr

Gee DR, I thought that all salary dumps worked out great for the small market teams, yet now you refer to the return on Kovalev as "table scraps."

Please clarify?

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:16 AM
  #69
DontTouchMyDonskoi
4everFerkland
 
DontTouchMyDonskoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Gee DR, I thought that all salary dumps worked out great for the small market teams, yet now you refer to the return on Kovalev as "table scraps."

Please clarify?
look for the context ... not sure if you were around here the year prior to AK being dealt, but a number of PIT fans were adamant that Kovalev would return a bounty of players and picks. he didnt.

and i dont think i ever said all salary dumps worked out great, only that it doesnt hurt as much as one thinks to dump a 6m loser hockey "star".

dr

DontTouchMyDonskoi is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:17 AM
  #70
DontTouchMyDonskoi
4everFerkland
 
DontTouchMyDonskoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiler_Fan
Edit:
I agree with Wetcoaster that they are getting desperate--said that myself in another thread replying to Wetcoasters before I read his comment in this thread
i think its the players who are getting desperate ... what evidence shows you its the owners ?

dr

DontTouchMyDonskoi is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:22 AM
  #71
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
i think its the players who are getting desperate ... what evidence shows you its the owners ?

dr
Damn . . . we totally agree on something . . . *ducks before that flying pig runs into him* . . .

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:25 AM
  #72
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
Damn . . . we totally agree on something . . . *ducks before that flying pig runs into him* . . .

I'd be shocked if both sides weren't feeling a little desperate, although I do think the panic level is likely a little higher on the PA's side.

Even if the eventual outcome is a hard cap without linkage, does anyone honestly believe the cap number won't be considerably lower next year?

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:39 AM
  #73
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
I'd be shocked if both sides weren't feeling a little desperate, although I do think the panic level is likely a little higher on the PA's side.

Even if the eventual outcome is a hard cap without linkage, does anyone honestly believe the cap number won't be considerably lower next year?
I always look for what makes most sense. And I have spelled out many times why the owners have from the very start been sitting with all the cards since this began. They planned very well to make this so and the PA seems to have been caught with their pants down.

Doesn't it tell you something that no team has touched the war chest yet and the year is almost done? The owners lose a year, even (God forbid) two, and yet get their Cap they make money in increased franchise values. Don't you think banks and investors would love the fact that they no longer have to worry about strikes and have a guarenteed profit of some sort built in? That they can buy a team in any of the markets and can compete on the same level field? How can that not increase franchise values across the board? Most lost money under the old system. They are going to 'break' for basically more of the same? The players however can not wait two years, most of them anyways, that would be half the careers of half of the players in the league. Once they see the owners willing to lose a second year, even this first, they will break and break hard. Play with replacements next year and the NHL players will cross in huge numbers.

No, the owners have virtually no pressure because if they wait they make back the money in many multiples in increased franchise values and future revenues where they make some money instead of bleed money. The players have no scenerio where that is so for them.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:42 AM
  #74
DontTouchMyDonskoi
4everFerkland
 
DontTouchMyDonskoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan

No, the owners have virtually no pressure because if they wait they make back the money in many multiples in increased franchise values and future revenues where they make some money instead of bleed money. The players have no scenerio where that is so for them.
dont be so naive..... of course they have pressure. who is going to be a major league level sponser of a league that is no bigger than the NLL or AAA baseball ?

the owners have very good reasons to get the game back on the ice, i just happen to believe the players care more about getting on the ice then the owners.

dr

DontTouchMyDonskoi is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:50 AM
  #75
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
dont be so naive..... of course they have pressure. who is going to be a major league level sponser of a league that is no bigger than the NLL or AAA baseball ?

the owners have very good reasons to get the game back on the ice, i just happen to believe the players care more about getting on the ice then the owners.

dr

Ok, let me restate . . . the pressures are vastly outweighed by the potential gains for the Owners. The players, even if they were to 'win', most have lost a quarter going on half of their careers. And if you are right and revenues are down for a year or two new contracts will be much much smaller than they would have been without a strike, and most contracts expired this year leaving a relatively small number of NHL players with contracts of any length at all. Each day that they remain out is a loss for them. Money wise the owners are not in nearly so bad a boat and actually may end up making money on the lockout in the end.

ps, thank God we are disagreeing again, I was tired of ducking the flying pigs.

Jaded-Fan 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 05:54 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.