HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout Thread X: The Leadership Has Left the Building

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 09:37 PM
  #126
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Other Flame View Post
The owners who allegedly 'lose' millions per season.
But much less now then they used to...

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 09:41 PM
  #127
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
Conclusion: this is a topic for an OT thread.
I wasn't looking to derail the thread with long posts about it. It effects how I feel about this situation so I felt it belonged here.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 09:49 PM
  #128
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I am anti-owner and pro-growth.

I am for moving franchises to better locations.
That's a very short term view of things. I take it you're in favour of relocating Phoenix to Quebec city? Did you forget Quebec lost their team due to ecenomic circumstances? What about Winnipeg? Edmonton and Calgary weren't that far off either. Currently all Canadian teams are said to turn a nice profit(relative of course) with 2 of them being among the big 3 earners in the NHL.

Following your better location theory Edmonton would be playing in Austin Texas...or wherever made sense to mvoe them when Austin started losing money and who knows where the rest of the Canadian teams would be. Would the league really have been better off abandoning the Canadian markets in the 90's for markets that were potentially more profitable for the short term window? How would the league look now trying to rebuild fanbases in Canadian cities rather than sticking it out and providing support for the struggling franchises in Canada? It akes time to build a successful product and it takes exposure in the major US cities to land the kind of big TV contract that allows for lucrative profit sharing. Simply shuffling the deck whenever a franchise goes through growing pains isn't going to build a long term healthy league.

Or perhaps we should move all the teams losing money in the US to other locations...where would you suggest? Quebec, Markham and what other cities...you only need 12-18 of them. Saskatoon anyone? Maybe Regina or Yellowknife as Canadian teams are currently doing well.

Brian28 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 09:55 PM
  #129
ckg927
Registered User
 
ckg927's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,564
vCash: 400
Send a message via Yahoo to ckg927
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Fair enough.

In that same time the population of Phoenix grew 1,000,000...

(That's a bigger jump in that 1 city than the whole province of Quebec which went from 7.2 million to about 7.92 million)
Of that total, how many support hockey?

Not as much as they support the D-Backs, Cardinals or Suns, I'd bet.

And that team just BLEEDS red ink. So much, the league owns it because no one wants to try their hand at owning a team.

ckg927 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 09:59 PM
  #130
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
One thing I've noticed is some of the people that argue dominantly from the PA perspective and defend their proposals also support contraction.

All of the PA proposals basically prohibit contraction from being a feasible option in the future.
... and most (if not all) seem to be fans of big market & big budget teams.

hmm... coincidence?

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:02 PM
  #131
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian28 View Post
That's a very short term view of things. I take it you're in favour of relocating Phoenix to Quebec city? Did you forget Quebec lost their team due to ecenomic circumstances? What about Winnipeg? Edmonton and Calgary weren't that far off either. Currently all Canadian teams are said to turn a nice profit(relative of course) with 2 of them being among the big 3 earners in the NHL.

Following your better location theory Edmonton would be playing in Austin Texas...or wherever made sense to mvoe them when Austin started losing money and who knows where the rest of the Canadian teams would be. Would the league really have been better off abandoning the Canadian markets in the 90's for markets that were potentially more profitable for the short term window? How would the league look now trying to rebuild fanbases in Canadian cities rather than sticking it out and providing support for the struggling franchises in Canada? It akes time to build a successful product and it takes exposure in the major US cities to land the kind of big TV contract that allows for lucrative profit sharing. Simply shuffling the deck whenever a franchise goes through growing pains isn't going to build a long term healthy league.

Or perhaps we should move all the teams losing money in the US to other locations...where would you suggest? Quebec, Markham and what other cities...you only need 12-18 of them. Saskatoon anyone? Maybe Regina or Yellowknife as Canadian teams are currently doing well.

Hockey in a Desert is going to take 40 years.
If the NHL wants to bankroll the team for 40 years, fine. Then Share the Damn Revenue.

But what's indefensible is this idea that the NHL puts teams in terrible places and then says, those 5 worst locations and poorly run franchises are the ones we are going to use to base our labor market

That's a scam,

Again, the NHL needs to decide if they are 30 independent businesses or 1 league.

They can't be 30 independents when it comes to meaningful revenue sharing and supporting new franchises -- and then be 1 league when it comes to conquering labor.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:07 PM
  #132
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckg927 View Post
Of that total, how many support hockey?

Not as much as they support the D-Backs, Cardinals or Suns, I'd bet.

And that team just BLEEDS red ink. So much, the league owns it because no one wants to try their hand at owning a team.
Ya but that has nothing to do with growth potential.

Some have said they are anti-owner but pro-growth by moving teams back to Canada.

That's short-term. Ya for a few years the league would be making more but that would quickly level off, and it would be just brutal if the CDN$ ever goes back down.

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:10 PM
  #133
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,726
vCash: 500
Edit... NM I see it players made real offer as of Nov 21st. Getting much better actually.

Seeing how much the lockout is screwing their revenue next few years the NHL should probably wipe out the "make whole" and just do a gradual reduction in share now.

They wont because of cost certainty but the owners would certainly save money next year.


Last edited by LickTheEnvelope: 11-30-2012 at 10:16 PM.
LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:18 PM
  #134
DPyro
Registered User
 
DPyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,302
vCash: 500
A point that has been lost in these discussions.... The LA Kings have been trying to sell their team for over a year now and haven't found a buyer. They have one of the highest attendances in the league, one of the top teams in revenue AND STILL LOST MONEY. Even after winning a Stanley Cup they still LOST money. That should tell you how much the owners are willing to sacrifice to get the deal they want. LA would be better off filling their arena with other venues than to play hockey, even though they sell out and generate a ton of revenue.

DPyro is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:30 PM
  #135
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPyro View Post
A point that has been lost in these discussions.... The LA Kings have been trying to sell their team for over a year now and haven't found a buyer. They have one of the highest attendances in the league, one of the top teams in revenue AND STILL LOST MONEY. Even after winning a Stanley Cup they still LOST money. That should tell you how much the owners are willing to sacrifice to get the deal they want. LA would be better off filling their arena with other venues than to play hockey, even though they sell out and generate a ton of revenue.
LA has been a bad franchise for a long time, one season of success isn't going to all of a sudden undo years and years of being irrelevant.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:30 PM
  #136
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,458
vCash: 500
I'm watching the Denver/Wisconsin game on NBCS right now and they just showed a graphic that listed about 8 CO natives playing for DU and mentioned that at least 4 of their recruits are from CO. The announcers we talking about how this is the first waive of kids who got into hockey when the Avalanche moved to CO 17 years ago.

Maybe moving every struggling team right now isn't the best idea. Especially considering the fact that just about every team in the league could have been in the "need to move" group in one point in their histories (which includes Detroit Bob).

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:37 PM
  #137
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
I'm watching the Denver/Wisconsin game on NBCS right now and they just showed a graphic that listed about 8 CO natives playing for DU and mentioned that at least 4 of their recruits are from CO. The announcers we talking about how this is the first waive of kids who got into hockey when the Avalanche moved to CO 17 years ago.

Maybe moving every struggling team right now isn't the best idea. Especially considering the fact that just about every team in the league could have been in the "need to move" group in one point in their histories (which includes Detroit Bob).
There's also a kid from Scottsdale who would've been three when the Coyotes moved into town (and he's a true Arizonian and not like a Couturier type).

Renbarg is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:42 PM
  #138
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
They're right, the on ice product is junk.
No, it's not.

Post-lockout hockety is still waaaay better than pre-lockout hockey. But that's a topic for another thread.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:11 PM
  #139
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Also the markets in Canada can't really grow any further while in places in the US all there is are growth opportunities.

The population of Quebec City is less now than 10 years ago...
Pardon?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02...rown-the-most/

Quote:
•Edmonton (up 12.1%), Calgary (up 12.6%) lead the country in growth
•Greatest raw population growth was in the Greater Toronto Area
•The GTA grew by 5.1% or about 477,000 people
•Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver account for 35% of population
•Only major urban areas to decline were Windsor and Thunder Bay
•Nearly 7 in 10 live in one of the country’s 33 census metro areas

DyerMaker66 is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:24 PM
  #140
Scottkmlps
Moderator
 
Scottkmlps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPyro View Post
A point that has been lost in these discussions.... The LA Kings have been trying to sell their team for over a year now and haven't found a buyer. They have one of the highest attendances in the league, one of the top teams in revenue AND STILL LOST MONEY. Even after winning a Stanley Cup they still LOST money. That should tell you how much the owners are willing to sacrifice to get the deal they want. LA would be better off filling their arena with other venues than to play hockey, even though they sell out and generate a ton of revenue.
They have been trying to sell the entire AEG brand. That includes a **** of a lot more than just the Kings. It also hasn't been a year, it's been about 3 months since they've been looking to sell.

Scottkmlps is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:25 PM
  #141
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
No, it's not.

Post-lockout hockety is still waaaay better than pre-lockout hockey. But that's a topic for another thread.
Still nowhere near what it could be.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:30 PM
  #142
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
Despite the fact that I don't think that whining and moaning about "the 1%" belongs on these boards (it's a very valid discussion, don't get me wrong, but this is neither the time nor the place), if people ARE going to discuss it, they need to properly define it.

Depends how you measure "top 1%": By salary or by wealth?

The annual salaries of the top 1% of US incomes starts at $344k /yr (figures as of 2009). The league minimum is $525k /yr. By the definition of salary, every single NHLer is in the top 1%.

By wealth, the amount of net worth you would need to be in the top 1% is roughly $8.4 million in combined assets. By that definition, I would wager that most (though clearly not all) NHLers who reach UFA will fall into this category, and many will reach that mark well before UFA (assuming they don't piss their money away: what players do with their own money is their own business, but the earning potential is clear).

Conclusion: this is a topic for an OT thread.
You're not wrong, but at the same time you're reading a little too much into it (my point at least)

I'm not comparing hockey players to the rest of of America and Canada's elite. Just responding to a post that is essentially comparing (place any industrial union here) and their bosses to the NHLPA and their bosses.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:39 PM
  #143
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
I'm watching the Denver/Wisconsin game on NBCS right now and they just showed a graphic that listed about 8 CO natives playing for DU and mentioned that at least 4 of their recruits are from CO. The announcers we talking about how this is the first waive of kids who got into hockey when the Avalanche moved to CO 17 years ago.

Maybe moving every struggling team right now isn't the best idea. Especially considering the fact that just about every team in the league could have been in the "need to move" group in one point in their histories (which includes Detroit Bob).
This has been discussed ad nauseam Gunner. In a couple of years you and I will be rooting for a first rounder that was born and bred in Los Angeles and will hopefully be the winger Sid's been looking for.

These things take generations to come to fruition. If you want to expand your brand, sometimes you have to stick them in spots that are a little outside the box. I wonder how many kids saw the Kings live or on TV lifting that trophy this summer, and are suddenly asking their parents for skates and sticks rather than a bat and glove. Even if it's only a few, this is how it starts.

But no, let's stick every team we can in Canada and give the Stanley Cup just about as much meaning in the North American grand scheme of things as the Grey Cup.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:50 PM
  #144
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
But no, let's stick every team we can in Canada and give the Stanley Cup just about as much meaning in the North American grand scheme of things as the Grey Cup.
More (stronger) teams in Canada will ruin the image of the league? Riiiiight.

Backwards thinking ftw! Don't put baseball teams in NY or Boston, or an NFL team in Dallas: Their leagues will have about as much meaning as the Arena Football League if they did that.


Last edited by DyerMaker66: 11-30-2012 at 11:56 PM.
DyerMaker66 is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:57 PM
  #145
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Still nowhere near what it could be.
If we are getting into that argument, post-lockout hockey as it currently stands is incredibly similar to pre-lockout.

Not the exact same - there's certainly less clutching and grabbing, although there's still plenty these days - but the pace has gotten laughably slow and the game is about as entertaining (that is to say, not very entertaining).

Chris Hansen is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:57 PM
  #146
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Aside from the population disadvantage (which is great... even with Canada having a 1% annual population growth rate to the USA's 0.7% annual growth rate) ...

Canada's economic growth is beginning to slow again:
http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...omy-to-a-crawl

While the US growth rate is growing back faster than predicted:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20544108

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:08 AM
  #147
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
Just responding to a post that is essentially comparing (place any industrial union here) and their bosses to the NHLPA and their bosses.
No, I was comparing owners to the 1%... because they are the 1%. Whether or not the players are is another discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
If we are getting into that argument, post-lockout hockey as it currently stands is incredibly similar to pre-lockout.

Not the exact same - there's certainly less clutching and grabbing, although there's still plenty these days - but the pace has gotten laughably slow and the game is about as entertaining (that is to say, not very entertaining).
This. If the owners want to make some money, maybe they could start with a better product?

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:22 AM
  #148
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
This. If the owners want to make some money, maybe they could start with a better product?
I have an idea for how to do that!

DyerMaker66 is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:31 AM
  #149
hockeyisforeveryone
Registered User
 
hockeyisforeveryone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 420
Good for the players! Like Fehr said, if the NHL simply will not negotiate then the only step is decertification or legal alternatives. I respect the NHLPA for taking this as far as it will go to prove their point.

As a relative noob at HF Boards one thing I've never heard much about is the bad blood between Bettman/the owners vs. the players (although I did know the fans hated Bettman ). It's boiling over now.

As a fellow ice hockey player I must side with the players. You dedicate your life, playing AAA hockey your entire adolescence, to Juniors, Pro, to the big time, all to give HALF your deserved reward to a group of pathetic, sickly (yet filthy rich) sociopaths who want to call you cattle? It's like I grow a crop of mangoes and because some business man can distribute them effectively he gets 50% of my product? No way bro. I'll burn down the entire orchard to prove a point that money is nothing and you'll get none of my services.

The owners can't stand in a hockey players boots for one second. I can't believe they would underestimate a group of players as hardcore and insane as NHL players are. It's THEIR game. THEY are what makes the NHL. I am so proud they are not backing down. I respect and admire the players now so much more than before this lockout. Yea I miss watching them play as we all do but I trust in whatever makes these guys satisfied enough to suit up again.

hockeyisforeveryone is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:39 AM
  #150
Q Continuum
You are Wrong
 
Q Continuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,932
vCash: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyisforeveryone View Post
Good for the players! Like Fehr said, if the NHL simply will not negotiate then the only step is decertification or legal alternatives.
Lol, it was the PA that refused to negotiate for an entire season.

They can go ahead and try. I hope the NHL has had employees watching the twitter comments. Those comments alone will expose them as using decertification as a negotiation tactic and they'll get fisted. And I'll enjoy every minute of it. Time for these spoiled crybabies to get a dose of reality.

Q Continuum 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 04:51 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.