http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...cle_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1094244389085
We find out for sure in a few minutes.
The NHL Lockout
- Thread starter explodet
- Start date
- Status
Team Rancid
Member
This sucks
trust me when i say it's a good thing that the nhl is locked out for a year, since the nhlpa will never agree to a salary cap... the nhl will claim impasse and the nhlpa will essentially cease to exist.
NHLPA has grown way too powerful and is run by greedy pricks.
NHLPA has grown way too powerful and is run by greedy pricks.
Alex Anderson
Member
*edit* eh, I don't really mean it. I like playoff hockey
WasabiKing
Member
More teams should fold anyway. Look, each team is getting $4 million this year thanks to the advertisements (or lackthereof) and the TV contracts with ABC/ESPN. Now how can you expect an owner front money for a star player with a contract that is double what you're taking in from the league. Some owners say it costs them less to lock out than to play this season. This is a far cry from the $80 million that NFL teams get each year, and that number increases. And I know hockey players want to get paid, but I can't see how they feel they can pull in the money when the US doesn't care, and I can prove that by saying that the Cosby Show reruns, a show that aired a good 10+ years ago, pulled better ratings that the 1st round of the PLAYOFFS.
And before I hear CANADA CANADA CANADA I AM CANADIAN CANADA CANADA as having such "AWESOME" ratings up North, you gotta understand, Canada's ratings CLEARLY have not made a huge difference when it comes to advertising and promotion of the sport. And take that "keeping the sport pure" cop out answer, it's clear that in these times, it's about the money, ask NASCAR and their legions of 'NECKS. You'd be a fool not to accept that the NHL needs the U.S. to survive, considering that a majority of those teams in NHL play in the United States.
So, I'm going to change this thread's direction a bit. You are Gary Bettman. Besides firing yourself, what would you do to improve outlook for the future of hockey? Do you close up shop on a majority of the franchises such as Columbus, Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, and Phoenix? Allow scabs? Improve outreach with the common American who doesn't give a shit about hockey? As someone who barely follows hockey, I'd like to see what you guys have to say.
And before I hear CANADA CANADA CANADA I AM CANADIAN CANADA CANADA as having such "AWESOME" ratings up North, you gotta understand, Canada's ratings CLEARLY have not made a huge difference when it comes to advertising and promotion of the sport. And take that "keeping the sport pure" cop out answer, it's clear that in these times, it's about the money, ask NASCAR and their legions of 'NECKS. You'd be a fool not to accept that the NHL needs the U.S. to survive, considering that a majority of those teams in NHL play in the United States.
So, I'm going to change this thread's direction a bit. You are Gary Bettman. Besides firing yourself, what would you do to improve outlook for the future of hockey? Do you close up shop on a majority of the franchises such as Columbus, Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, and Phoenix? Allow scabs? Improve outreach with the common American who doesn't give a shit about hockey? As someone who barely follows hockey, I'd like to see what you guys have to say.
shoplifter
Member
aside from the obvious bias I'll have:
you don't close columbus, because iirc we actually make money. our attendance is almost always sellout here. the town loves the game (as long as it doesn't conflict with ohio state football...)
you don't close columbus, because iirc we actually make money. our attendance is almost always sellout here. the town loves the game (as long as it doesn't conflict with ohio state football...)
shoplifter
Member
Even with those concessions, the league still loses money. The only way to make that money is through either TV deals (yeah right) or raising ticket prices, which would put us right back here when people quit buying tickets.
This is good news for the league...
"We think owners should determine market value," says the NHLPA. Well, they've done such a great job of it to date that the on-ice product, parity, etc. are better than ever... (rolleyesrolleyesrolleyes). There are owners who are quite obviously morons that are unwilling or unable to keep control of their pursestrings. See New York, where the Rangers will jump at any big name, no matter how bad a fit he is for the team. They're an exception to the rule that money breeds success.
Of the teams that didn't make the playoffs last year, 10/14 had payrolls below the league average. When Calgary makes the finals, it's part abberation and part the product of more than a decade of working to rebuild. Once other teams (or players' agents) take notice under the current system, they can pick apart the team by pricing the pieces of that team out of the Flames' buying power.
I think a cap would improve the product on the ice, create a more competitive league, and if anything, that will help the league grow, which is to the benefit of both players and owners in the long term. But in the short term, it's bad news for players who have benefited from the Detroits and New Yorks of the league.
By the way, I'm not entirely opposed to a luxury tax system, but it needs to tax high-spending teams pretty heavily, IMO. A cap is a much better concept.
-SB
"We think owners should determine market value," says the NHLPA. Well, they've done such a great job of it to date that the on-ice product, parity, etc. are better than ever... (rolleyesrolleyesrolleyes). There are owners who are quite obviously morons that are unwilling or unable to keep control of their pursestrings. See New York, where the Rangers will jump at any big name, no matter how bad a fit he is for the team. They're an exception to the rule that money breeds success.
Of the teams that didn't make the playoffs last year, 10/14 had payrolls below the league average. When Calgary makes the finals, it's part abberation and part the product of more than a decade of working to rebuild. Once other teams (or players' agents) take notice under the current system, they can pick apart the team by pricing the pieces of that team out of the Flames' buying power.
I think a cap would improve the product on the ice, create a more competitive league, and if anything, that will help the league grow, which is to the benefit of both players and owners in the long term. But in the short term, it's bad news for players who have benefited from the Detroits and New Yorks of the league.
By the way, I'm not entirely opposed to a luxury tax system, but it needs to tax high-spending teams pretty heavily, IMO. A cap is a much better concept.
-SB
TheQueen'sOwn
insert blank space here
I want hockey... Replacements style.
Since so many only watch it for the fights, they should guarantee one fight per period of play.....that'll get people watching.
And bring back that camera-trick that puts a neon highlight around the puck.
And replace those giant circles on the ice with painted-on breasts, since that's what we're all thinking anyway...
And bring back that camera-trick that puts a neon highlight around the puck.
And replace those giant circles on the ice with painted-on breasts, since that's what we're all thinking anyway...
WasabiKing said:
I'd fold Florida, Carolina, Atlanta, Pheonix, Anaheim, Nashville, perhaps move one of those teams back to Winnipeg and/or Quebec City, places where hockey is the front page sports story every single day during the season, somewhere fans actually care about the game, follow it on a daily basis, know the rules. Reduce the sched to about 70 games, create more inter-conference matchups.
This totally sucks for hockey. I remember the lockout in the mid-90s and I almost totally lost interest in the sport for a good 2-3 years. This will hurt the fans and the game the most. If the players are willing to take pay cuts, then what's the big deal with the salary cap? It would basically be almost the same thing. Well, not exactly but still...these guys are all greedy fucks who make MILLIONS for hitting a rubber disc with a stick. I'd be happy just making $50,000 a year, nevermind.
Malakhov
Banned
They also bring millions in revenue.Alucard said:
I like how everyone is fine with an actor who gets about 20 millions a movie because the movie generates revenues but on the other hand they aren't fine with a sports player getting millions per season because they generate millions in revenue.
dem
Member
I'm fine with an athlete bringing in millions of dollars... but right now theyre making TOO MUCH.
Is it the owners fault? Yes.. kind of... but there obviously needs to be some kind of cap/severe luxury tax in place. It only takes one or two crazyass gm's to screw the whole league as it is now.
Is it the owners fault? Yes.. kind of... but there obviously needs to be some kind of cap/severe luxury tax in place. It only takes one or two crazyass gm's to screw the whole league as it is now.
Malakhov
Banned
No doubt they're making too much but a salary cap isn't the only viable solution like the owners are pretending. A luxury taxe would benefit the league even more than a salary cap.
The players are to blame, the owners are to blame, no one is white in this conflict BUT right now as we speak, the owners are being stubborn.
The players are to blame, the owners are to blame, no one is white in this conflict BUT right now as we speak, the owners are being stubborn.
If teams weren't allowed to run at a loss, I don't think there would be this mess. Yes hockey players are worth a lot of money, but not as much as similar professional sports athaletes like baseball or football, because the American audience is small compared to other sports.
The problem with even one team spending more than they make is that it inflates the value of the hockey player, and other clubs also start spending money they don't have just so they can stay competetive. If a club spends say 80 million a year, but makes 90 million, there shouldn't be tax. They are a successful franchise, leave them alone.
About some sort of luxery tax, how is forced competiveness a free market? You can't force people to be free. As for a salary cap, it would have to be as high as the lowest revenue generating team, meaning many great athaletes, would be paid what they deserve. Again, I say the best solution is no debt, ever.
If a lot of smaller franchises fold up, good, its obvious the town's don't care for hockey, and the players can go to other teams with a real fanbase.
The problem with even one team spending more than they make is that it inflates the value of the hockey player, and other clubs also start spending money they don't have just so they can stay competetive. If a club spends say 80 million a year, but makes 90 million, there shouldn't be tax. They are a successful franchise, leave them alone.
About some sort of luxery tax, how is forced competiveness a free market? You can't force people to be free. As for a salary cap, it would have to be as high as the lowest revenue generating team, meaning many great athaletes, would be paid what they deserve. Again, I say the best solution is no debt, ever.
If a lot of smaller franchises fold up, good, its obvious the town's don't care for hockey, and the players can go to other teams with a real fanbase.
Malakhov
Banned
Only 6 teams were responsible for the losses last year. 2 of these teams don't care about it (Blues, wich are owned by a Walmart owner I believer and the Rangers who were responsible for their losses) and the rest well it's due to too much expansion and small market teams.
I say right off the bat they should get rid of at least 6 teams.
I say right off the bat they should get rid of at least 6 teams.
Spectral Glider
Member
Here's a link to an article that I, for the most part, agree with:
The NHL's gone.....and I don't care.
I will say that there were some playoff games of the last ten years that were pretty entertaining, but the regular season product was generally crappy.
The NHL's gone.....and I don't care.
I will say that there were some playoff games of the last ten years that were pretty entertaining, but the regular season product was generally crappy.
Spectral Glider
Member
Malakhov said:
It has much more value than an ignorant response on a message board.
Spectral Glider
Member
That has nothing to do with the argument he presents anyway. The writer was/is a Canucks fan as well, so the Pittsburgh connection is meaningless to the point he's making.
Malakhov
Banned
- Status