The W
Views: 97568778
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.7.14 1010
The W - Hockey - GAME OFF Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.57
Pages: 1
(309 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (9 total)
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2199 days
Last activity: 2196 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.62
Aaaaaand, it's official.

I just hope as a hockey fan that this doesn't kill things beyond repair, but if baseball ended up taking a 3-year hit over a work stoppage, God knows what the NHL looks like when this is settled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6892613/

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 16.2.05 1309)


"It's wicker propelled by fire!"
Promote this thread!
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
Why they just don't copy the NFL contract between the league and the players' union, I'll never know. The NFL has a certain amount of parity, but a team has now proven that a dynasty can be built if done correctly. And with the league growing as it is, John Clayton say the salary cap is going to go from $84 million to $102 million next year, so the players are going to get theirs.



“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it."
-- Guru Zim

"Speak English or face admin retribution." -- CRZ
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2452 days
Last activity: 554 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.83
I think that the problem with that, JJD, is that the NHL has only miniscule TV revenues, and no revenue sharing. Since TV revenue dwarfs gate revenue for the NFL, team income varies by a lot less than in the NHL, where the gate is far and away a bigger chunk of cash than the TV deal. With a wider spread in team revenues, you end up setting a cap that some teams can't spend up to, so the imbalance in payrolls isn't really dealt with. If the NHL owners were willing to consider revenue sharing, than I think they could have gone with an NFL style cap.

The thing that kills me about all of this: Where were all the high-payroll teams during the final last year? Why does everyone think that spending money correlates with successful on-ice product?

As for the cancelling - Feh. Whatever. Making Bettman commissoner is the worst thing the league has ever done. Everything has gone downhill since he took over, and there has been NO effective action from the league to fix the economic situation or the level of play. Now the league takes a hatchet to it's fan base - sheer stupidity. They're destroying a 2.1 Billion Dollar Industry over - at absolute most - 195 million dollars. I wasn't that angry about the lockout, but cancelling everything when the sides are so close together disgustst me.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2199 days
Last activity: 2196 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.62

    I think that the problem with that, JJD, is that the NHL has only miniscule TV revenues, and no revenue sharing. Since TV revenue dwarfs gate revenue for the NFL, team income varies by a lot less than in the NHL, where the gate is far and away a bigger chunk of cash than the TV deal. With a wider spread in team revenues, you end up setting a cap that some teams can't spend up to, so the imbalance in payrolls isn't really dealt with. If the NHL owners were willing to consider revenue sharing, than I think they could have gone with an NFL style cap.


It's more than that. It's that all of the money that the NFL gets all come from the networks directly and not from individual channels on a team-by-team basis. Because what the Rangers get for their local TV package is not going to be the same as what the Coyotes get from theirs, and teams making more for their local TV rights are protective of them, as opposed to the more socialist NFL, who have none of its regular season/playoff game on anything except for a national network and thus they're able to whack up the money evenly.

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 16.2.05 1337)


"It's wicker propelled by fire!"
orangeman
Salami








Since: 21.8.04
From: ...that would be telling

Since last post: 2954 days
Last activity: 2900 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
A couple of days ago I found a poll ESPN.com ran a little while back asking "Do you care that the NHL is expected to cancel the 2004-05 season?"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=buccigross_john&id=1984067

Overall was 73% no and 27% yes, total votes 146,514.

Then they broke it down by state based on the voters' ISP location. The place where the most people said they cared was Michigan at 41%. In places with long time hockey fan base and tradition at multiple levels (pro, college, high school) like Minnesota and Massachusetts they were running about 70/30 in favor of not caring.

When you get numbers like that in those places, I wonder what's gonna be left when the NHL comes back, in whatever form it may take. The owners and union could go on to create the greatest CBA ever in terms of helping ensure teams and players get what they want/need to make money in theory, but if the fans don't come back to support the game it won't be worth a damn. The ill will that comes from this is just unbelievable.



Detective Vic Mackey



Leader of your friendly neighborhood Strike Team

TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 7 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
Now in a political sense, I am very much pro-union and feel most if not all workers should have the right to unionize. However, as a fan, I wonder why the NHL doesn't take this opportunity to say "Player salaries and egos are out of control, and the NHLPA has way too much power," and just refuse to recognize the union. I think most players would still come back to the league, and those that don't can be replaced. This league is looking at a few shitty years anyway as it tries to rebuild fan trust, intimacy and loyalty, so why not use that time to also get some players who can't/won't threaten strike?

I know the entire conflict isn't the players' fault, but strictly looking at it from the eyes of the owners and commissioner, I think this would be a good way to impliment the things they think the game needs. I also thought baseball should have done this years ago after the strike in '94.





Become Republican!
mountinman44
Sujuk








Since: 8.5.02
From: San Diego, CA

Since last post: 1158 days
Last activity: 1004 days
Y!:
#7 Posted on
I can't be more angry about the cancellation. I just watched an interview with The Great One on SportsCenter, and he hit the nail on the head. Bettman saw that the NHL wasn't going to get near the national TV revenue from NBC and ESPN that they got from previous contracts with ABC, FOX and ESPN. The money was not going to be there. He has to get some sort of cost certainty, or they start to lose teams.
I think there has to be some blame put on Bob Goodenow. The League made most of the proposals. The NHLPA made one, and that one proposal puts the NHL in the same hole it is in now in three years. The luxury tax does not work. Look at MLB. They had a couple of years of sanity under the tax (sans the Yankees and Red Sox), but now teams are spending like drunken sailors again. $49 million cap? Only three teams are over that right now. At $42.5 million, only 8 teams are over. While Goodenow may dismiss Bettman's argument against the larger number, will a $49 million cap really stop the unfettered spending?
Another question... Goodenow said in one of his letters to Bettman last night that a lot of teams are spending less than $42.5 million right now. So what's the problem with $42.5 million if so many teams are "well below" that ceiling?
Heat Miser has a great point as well. Where were the high-payroll teams last year? The Rangers are probably having their best season in 10 years right now by not playing. Philly didn't get to the Finals... nor Detroit and Toronto. Spending money in the NHL does not give you greatness.
So where do we go from here? I'm afraid the future is not bright.



"You have to vote for one of us. It's a two party system. HAHAHAHAHA!" -- Kang and Kodos
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 386 days
Last activity: 386 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
    Originally posted by mountinman44
    I can't be more angry about the cancellation. I just watched an interview with The Great One on SportsCenter, and he hit the nail on the head. Bettman saw that the NHL wasn't going to get near the national TV revenue from NBC and ESPN that they got from previous contracts with ABC, FOX and ESPN. The money was not going to be there. He has to get some sort of cost certainty, or they start to lose teams.







Now, how much of this can be blamed on the game becoming a watered down, clutch and grab, neutral zone trap version of itself during the Reign of Terror of Mr. Bettman? Open ice hockey with no fighting? Ok. Lots of fighting without much open ice hockey? Liveable. Unfortunately during the Reign of Bettman, they frown on fighting and the game has become stagnant, the worst of both worlds.
The union is crazy to think that the league has money, but Bettman has made John Ziegler look like the model commissioner. Though they will never go back to the days of the Original Six, the days of the Original 21 might be what is necessary.
And, flipping through a few stations on the radio playing Bettman, I was hoping at least one would play Brass Bonanza in the background everytime Bettman said "In September".

(edited by redsoxnation on 16.2.05 2010)
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni








Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 844 days
Last activity: 814 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
And, as usual, Bill Wirtz said that if there's another season, he'll hold to the time-honored tight-wad screw-the-fans tradition of not televising home games.

I think Wirtz in French stands for "cheapskate tool."
Thread rated: 5.57
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Free Stanley
Next thread: We're gettin' a minor league team back!
Previous thread: NHL 2005-2005: The Lost Season
(309 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Doesn't suit his style of play - won't help the rangers at all that way - get a bigger helmet with jaw protection and get in front of the net Stylin' and Profilin' - Custom Made from Head to Toe.....courtesy of Michael's of Kansas City
- dunkndollaz, Lindros on the perimeter (2002)
Related threads: NHLPA offers cap - NHL Celebrates All-Star Weekend By (Probably) Cancelling Season - Talks Back On - More...
The W - Hockey - GAME OFFRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.083 seconds.