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

Terry O'Reilly on TV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-19-2004, 10:57 PM
  #1
Adamx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 212
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Adamx
Terry O'Reilly on TV

I saw Terry O'Reilly on TV tonight, and when asked about the possibility of NHL Hockey next year, he said he had spoken with Bob Goodenow, and he said 2 years is a good possibility for the lockout.

Adamx is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 11:52 PM
  #2
Radek27
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,730
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
I saw Terry O'Reilly on TV tonight, and when asked about the possibility of NHL Hockey next year, he said he had spoken with Bob Goodenow, and he said 2 years is a good possibility for the lockout.

Bye NHL

Radek27 is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 07:44 AM
  #3
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27
Bye NHL

Exactly! If they anticipate holding out for that long, they might as well shut the league down. No way it survives.

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 09:11 AM
  #4
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
Iand he said 2 years is a good possibility for the lockout.
They shut down for 2 whole years and they might loose me as a fan.
Both Bettman & Goodenow have got to get their collective heads out of their arses and realize that hockey does not have the same footing that the other 3 major sports do. Heck, one can make a case that to the majority of America, NASCAR & golf are more of a major sport than hockey is.
I don't see how Bettman's stand of there being no contraction can hold if the league shuts down for 2 years. Heck, I don't see how (even with the supposed $300m warchest) some teams can survive a whole year, let alone 2.
I think that the sport is in major trouble. Shutting down for 1 year will cost them BIG TIME. I have no idea how Bettman & Goodenow cannot see that. It will cost them new fans and old fans. Shutting down for 2 years might mean the end of hockey as a sport in USA.

True Blue is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 09:46 AM
  #5
Adamx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 212
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Adamx
O'Reilly also said there is a new league starting in Russia next season that is going to pay players a lot of money, so some European players may not come back if/when the lockout ends.

Adamx is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 10:13 AM
  #6
sickboy35
Registered User
 
sickboy35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: trenton
Posts: 1,910
vCash: 500
if that happens? i won't be back!

sickboy35 is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 10:25 AM
  #7
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
They close down for 1 year, let alone 2 and the NHL will be finished in the US....Look how long it took baseball to get back...And with Hockey, we're probably talking about the 11th rated sport in the US behind Baseball, football, collefge FB, basketball, college BB, golf, NASCAR, Extreme Sports, Demolition Derby, Tiddly-winks and who knows what else.....Exept for the hardcore, people will not give a ***** and forget after a lockout of a year...Hell, I think even a half year lock-out will set the stage for a crippling loss as there are so many alternatives out there, both live and on TV.....I consider myself a hard core hockey fan and I know my interest will wane big time if these fools can't reach an agreement...

Larry Melnyk is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 11:37 AM
  #8
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
What gets me

is that the thought that those 2 fools think that every thing will justs go back to normal after such a long lockout. How can they not know where hockey stands as compared to all other major (and some not-so-major) sports? Are they just opting to ignore reality or are they just delusional? Heck, in his article to USA today, Eric Dejardins makes a statement that more viewers tune into women's bowling than they do to the NHL.
What the NHL has is a small, but VERY rabid fanbase. One could make a statement that fans of the NHL are the most rabid, loyal fans around. However, a cancellation of an entire season (let alone 2) could cost them a good amount of those fans. It's not like they have proven that they can create new fans. I could never fogive EITHER side if there is no season. Even baseball (a sport that has a players union, whose strenght is uparalleled anywhere in the free world)realized that any type of a strike would not be just plain bad for the game, but outright disastrous.
I cannot imagine that both Bettman and Goodenow do not realize that any type of extened lockout or strike would be an unmitigated disaster, the likes of which the sport may never revover from.

True Blue is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 11:59 AM
  #9
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
No chance Bettman allows a strike to go on that long. Maybe the players can wait 2 years, but I can assure you that owners can't, and that's who Bettman represents.

It's also not in Goodenow's best interest to see franchises go under. For every team that folds, ~30 NHLPA members jobs go with it. That, in turn, will create an excess supply of players in the market which will only drive salaries down further.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 12:43 PM
  #10
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
No chance Bettman allows a strike to go on that long. Maybe the players can wait 2 years, but I can assure you that owners can't, and that's who Bettman represents.

It's also not in Goodenow's best interest to see franchises go under. For every team that folds, ~30 NHLPA members jobs go with it. That, in turn, will create an excess supply of players in the market which will only drive salaries down further.
I always thought the opposite was true, that the owners with their other interests could walk away more easily. Aside from some of the Canadian fraanchises, that is. It's been the history of NHL contract negotiations that the players have always blinked first.

I think Bettman and the owners are ready to play some bigtime hardball.

kazo is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 01:11 PM
  #11
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
I saw Terry O'Reilly on TV tonight, and when asked about the possibility of NHL Hockey next year, he said he had spoken with Bob Goodenow, and he said 2 years is a good possibility for the lockout.
The owners and the players can not afford to shut down the league for one season,forget about two seasons

Nothing will be left if that ever happened

The owners will lose their teams to the banks and the players will lose money they will never get back

For a league with an average league salary of $1.79 million,the players are over-paid

A serious salary correction is needed.No NHL player should be making more than $6-7 million per season.The league revenues do not support it

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 01:41 PM
  #12
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
I saw Terry O'Reilly on TV tonight, and when asked about the possibility of NHL Hockey next year, he said he had spoken with Bob Goodenow, and he said 2 years is a good possibility for the lockout.

If the league shutsdown for 2 years , we might see a 6 team league again !

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 02:13 PM
  #13
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazo
I always thought the opposite was true, that the owners with their other interests could walk away more easily.
A team is still a business. Even if there's no player salaries to pay, there's still fixed costs to cover. At some point will owners be unwilling to continue taking a loss in an attempt to take a stand againt the players association. At some point, you have to either reopen the revenue streams or close the doors. My guess is, owners would rather compromise their position than risk financial ruin of their investment.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 02:29 PM
  #14
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
How long will the owners go without the enormous profits from advertising, concessions, and merchandising? If the owner owns the arena, it'll be dark for an extra 41 nights a year, so that ain't gonna happen. Only so many concerts/circuses/etc. they can bring in to cover those dark days.

Forechecker is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 02:33 PM
  #15
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,158
vCash: 500
My opinion is that this talk is just that. Alot of positioning is going on, and has been going on for awhile now. I don't think we'll see a 2 season lockout. It'll take some time but nobody wins if both sides stick to there guns 100 percent. They'll both end up bending, and then we'll have hockey back so we can find more reasons to curse Sather

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 02:38 PM
  #16
Blueshirt13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Other side of the Ri
Posts: 801
vCash: 500
Common sense would say if September was approaching and no agreement was worked out, they would renew the current agreement for another year in an attempt to save the sport from losing its fan base. Better to potentially lose $280-300 million in a year than to lose a hell of a lot more than that per year over the next 5 when your fan base leaves the sport and growth in fans turns negative.

Blueshirt13 is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 06:32 PM
  #17
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Since when is O'Reilly an expert of CBA's. When both sides realize that their gravy train is about to fall off the tracks they'll put their heads together and hammer something out. I DOUBT that will be two years. O'Reilly and the owners have to talk tough going into these negotiations.

DarthSather99 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 10:54 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.