Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] The Doan Meta-Thread v2.0


  • Please log in to reply
1062 replies to this topic

#571 Raiun

Raiun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:04 PM

September 15th is gonna be a big day. We'll finally know how the Doan chronicles end, and I think that's also the day they will officially lockout if there is gonna be one?

I still hope he comes here. I don't think the Phoenix sale is going to be completed by then... I sincerely doubt the Phoenix sale is going to be done at all.
  • 0

#572 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:15 PM

I'm really curious about one thing.

Doan says he's waiting for Phx till Sept 15th at midnight (termination of current CBA). But if the sale doesn't go through by that time, what's his plan? He's gonna have to negotiate a contract with another team by that same deadline. I realize he's received contract offers by multiple teams. But you just don't accept a contract from an unknown team, there is fine tuning that needs to take place and that takes time. Is his agent currently negotiating those fine details with other teams in case Phx deal falls through? Logically, he'd have to.

Edited by RunningWild, 08 September 2012 - 11:20 PM.

  • 0

#573 Chronopolis

Chronopolis

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 05

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:44 PM

Not sure if anyone but you cares ..


A "weiser" man once said, "If you canna handle my opinions, then feel free to ignore me."

Cheers!

  • 0

#574 Rypien37

Rypien37

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,574 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 07

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:51 PM

Calling it....sale doesn't go through by the 15th...Doan extends deadline to "end of the month".
  • 1
Posted Image

R.I.P. Your heart and fearlessness will be remembered


#575 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:01 AM

Sorry but PHX is going to Seattle not Quebec. Quebec has already proven they could not support a NHL team and now you want to put another one back in there. That province cannot run its financial affairs and currently receives about $15 billion in direct subsidies from the rest of Canada. Yes, the NHL has been subsidizing PHX and that would not change moving them to Quebec City. When Quebec runs a balanced budget then I would support a team going there, not until then.


The Oilers, Flames, Jets, and Senators were all treading water in 1995. The Nordiques had three strong seasons with considerable fan support within Quebec before moving to Colorado - (and the Avalanche obviously inherited a team ready to enjoy immediate success.)

The issue that the Province of Quebec couldn't or can't manage their finances may have merit but is slightly off topic and doesn't have much to do with the corporation/franchise that was the Quebec Nordiques - and likewise concerning the idea that the Nordiques move has anything to do with the fiscal policies of the provincial government (or it's relationship within federalism) or Quebec City's particular inability to sustain that franchise. (Ironically, in 1995, the Province of Quebec would not 'subsidize'/bail out the Nordiques.)

The Canadian dollar was worth 89 cents US in 1991 - by 1995 it was worth 71 cents - it dropped off nearly 18 cents in under 4 years. The country as a whole felt the effects of the exchange rate.

Alll the smaller Canadian markets were facing the fact that they were not viable financially in that context. Edmonton and Calgary hung onto their franchises by the skin of their teeth. NHL salaries were increasing rapidly, were paid in US dollars, and in addition, there was no salary cap to attempt to maintain the relative competitiveness of smaller market teams. The result was a standoff where Bettman did one of the few things I regard in his career - he convinced the US franchises that it was necessary to create equalization due to the effects of the exchange rate.

The context for small market teams is entirely different today with the parity of the dollar and the significant differences of the CBA. Imo Quebec City is every bit as viable as peripheral, non-hockey (small) market US franchises.

Doan may feel loyal to Phoenix, but the only reason there is a team there is due to the conditions in the 1990s that was strangling the Canadian franchises. I for one (as a Jets fan at the time) have a hard time feeling sorry for Phoenix if their team headed back north, and their captain Northwest.

Edited by oldnews, 09 September 2012 - 12:28 AM.

  • 2

#576 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:01 AM

I have two puppies and many hugs .. what I need is to be able to express an unpopular opinion without having personal attacks directed my way .. I have a problem when people make twist the topics discussed here into personal slights .. Doana could give a rats rectum what I say .. too many other folks take it upon themselves to "defend" his honor .. it is laughable, really .. thanks for the thought tho .. :)

There is a big difference between expressing an unpopular opinion, and doing it in the most abrasive way possible and then sticking around for a fight with the first person to comment.
You don't sound stupid, so I am sure you recognize that you were fishing for conflict. Go ahead, play the plaintiff/victim, and say "Oh it's just my opinion". It's pretty obvious what you're commenting in this thread for.
  • 3

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#577 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,645 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:09 AM

There is a big difference between expressing an unpopular opinion, and doing it in the most abrasive way possible and then sticking around for a fight with the first person to comment.
You don't sound stupid, so I am sure you recognize that you were fishing for conflict. Go ahead, play the plaintiff/victim, and say "Oh it's just my opinion". It's pretty obvious what you're commenting in this thread for.


You are wasting your time here if you are so skilled at reading peoples minds and intent .. you don't sound stupid, either .. you find my words and tone abrasive? .. look within and ask yourself why? .. folks find others words abrasive when they disagree with the message usually ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#578 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,645 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:12 AM

The Oilers, Flames, Jets, and Senators were all treading water in 1995. The Nordiques had three strong seasons with considerable fan support within Quebec before moving to Colorado - (and the Avalanche obviously inherited a team ready to enjoy immediate success.)

The issue that the Province of Quebec couldn't or can't manage their finances may have merit but is slightly off topic and doesn't have much to do with the corporation/franchise that was the Quebec Nordiques - and likewise concerning the idea that the Nordiques move has anything to do with the fiscal policies of the provincial government (or it's relationship within federalism) or Quebec City's particular inability to sustain that franchise. (Ironically, in 1995, the Province of Quebec would not 'subsidize'/bail out the Nordiques.)

The Canadian dollar was worth 89 cents US in 1991 - by 1995 it was worth 71 cents - it dropped off nearly 18 cents in under 4 years. The country as a whole felt the effects of the exchange rate.

Alll the smaller Canadian markets were facing the fact that they were not viable financially in that context. Edmonton and Calgary hung onto their franchises by the skin of their teeth. NHL salaries were increasing rapidly, were paid in US dollars, and in addition, there was no salary cap to attempt to maintain the relative competitiveness of smaller market teams. The result was a standoff where Bettman did one of the few things I regard in his career - he convinced the US franchises that it was necessary to create equalization due to the effects of the exchange rate.

The context for small market teams is entirely different today with the parity of the dollar and the significant differences of the CBA. Imo Quebec City is every bit as viable as peripheral, non-hockey (small) market US franchises.

Doan may feel loyal to Phoenix, but the only reason there is a team there is due to the conditions in the 1990s that was strangling the Canadian franchises. I for one (as a Jets fan at the time) have a hard time feeling sorry for Phoenix if their team headed back north, and their captain Northwest.


Very well stated .. the low Canadian dollar did more to destroy the Jet and Nordique franchises than any other factor .. I believe the new Jet administration will set the standard for "small market" franchises .. some of the weaker American franchises would do well to study the Winnipeg model ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#579 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:29 AM

The Oilers, Flames, Jets, and Senators were all treading water in 1995. The Nordiques had three strong seasons with considerable fan support within Quebec before moving to Colorado - (and the Avalanche obviously inherited a team ready to enjoy immediate success.)

The issue that the Province of Quebec couldn't or can't manage their finances may have merit but is slightly off topic and doesn't have much to do with the corporation/franchise that was the Quebec Nordiques - and likewise concerning the idea that the Nordiques move has anything to do with the fiscal policies of the provincial government (or it's relationship within federalism) or Quebec City's particular inability to sustain that franchise. (Ironically, in 1995, the Province of Quebec would not 'subsidize'/bail out the Nordiques.)

The Canadian dollar was worth 89 cents US in 1991 - by 1995 it was worth 71 cents - it dropped off nearly 18 cents in under 4 years. The country as a whole felt the effects of the exchange rate.

Alll the smaller Canadian markets were facing the fact that they were not viable financially in that context. Edmonton and Calgary hung onto their franchises by the skin of their teeth. NHL salaries were increasing rapidly, were paid in US dollars, and in addition, there was no salary cap to attempt to maintain the relative competitiveness of smaller market teams. The result was a standoff where Bettman did one of the few things I regard in his career - he convinced the US franchises that it was necessary to create equalization due to the effects of the exchange rate.

The context for small market teams is entirely different today with the parity of the dollar and the significant differences of the CBA. Imo Quebec City is every bit as viable as peripheral, non-hockey (small) market US franchises.

Doan may feel loyal to Phoenix, but the only reason there is a team there is due to the conditions in the 1990s that was strangling the Canadian franchises. I for one (as a Jets fan at the time) have a hard time feeling sorry for Phoenix if their team headed back north, and their captain Northwest.

Well said, you made many valid points. My anti eastern baise raised it's ugly head.

I will not argue that Canadian NHL teams do well at the gate but that is not the business plan for success in today's NHL. The future is broadcast revenue and Bettman has proven it over the past 7 years. He has doubled revenue in that period. So even tho my jaded view of Quebec City doesn't stand up in the 'gate revenue' context I stand by my belief that Seattle makes more sense. It makes more sense from the current NHL business plan pespective as Seattle is a major USA market and also from the Canuck perspective. I would love to have another NHL city that close. For that matter I lean towards Van being in the Pacific Division even tho I would miss seeing those young Oilers develope.
  • 0

#580 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 09 September 2012 - 09:37 AM

Well said, you made many valid points. My anti eastern baise raised it's ugly head.

I will not argue that Canadian NHL teams do well at the gate but that is not the business plan for success in today's NHL. The future is broadcast revenue and Bettman has proven it over the past 7 years. He has doubled revenue in that period. So even tho my jaded view of Quebec City doesn't stand up in the 'gate revenue' context I stand by my belief that Seattle makes more sense. It makes more sense from the current NHL business plan pespective as Seattle is a major USA market and also from the Canuck perspective. I would love to have another NHL city that close. For that matter I lean towards Van being in the Pacific Division even tho I would miss seeing those young Oilers develope.


Well honestly, I have a bit of an anti-US-non-hockey-market bias myself. I resent the fact there are teams in places like Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Phoenix, Anaheim, Florida, etc but not in some places where hockey is #1.

I would like to see a team in Seattle as well, but that is about the only remaining place in the States I'd like to see get a franchise - and I think a number of US-based teams are inevitably going to fail in the long term. My only doubt regarding Seattle is a caution due the fact that they lost the Supersonics - and next to football and baseball, basketball is pretty much #3 - and gigantic in the US.

The point you raise about broadcast revenue might rule out Regina/Saskatoon, which is sad, considering the remarkable amount of NHLers Saskatchewan produces and how rabid their hockey fans are, as well as the prospects of another eastern team in Canada outside of Onterrible or Quebec. Small Canadian markets may even have more hockey fans than even the large US markets, although the US networks no doubt can pony up more dollars for broadcast rights - I just have to wonder what the actual ratings in the oddball US markets are (particularly when they aren't icing a winning team)?

Broadcast revenues a decade ago were only half of what the gate revenues in the NHL were. I wonder what the figures are today.

Here's an interesting study that maintains that Canada could sustain 12 franchises - they use Edmonton as a benchmark, as the NHL team with the smallest population, but which manages to generate more revenue than many US franchises (despite the on-ice product not having been very competitive.)

http://www.mowatcent...Research/31.pdf
  • 0

#581 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,050 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 09 September 2012 - 09:50 AM

Do the future nordiques form a one team league should the pq continue to gain momentum?

Seriously though, I would like to see Quebec get a team as well as seattle. Finances aside, a great rivalry potential for the Habs and the nucks
  • 0
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#582 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,645 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 10:13 AM

I agree with Seattle and Quebec City .. also believe that Saskatchewan, Hamilton and Markham could all sustain NHL franchises, thus moving some of the less desirable US based teams north .. doubt it can happen under Bettman's watch .. he is all about developing "violence" on ice to attract and hold a less educated American TV audience .. I think this is the reason that a "WWE on ICE" mood seems to permeate the officiating at times ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#583 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,259 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 September 2012 - 10:53 AM

I agree with Seattle and Quebec City .. also believe that Saskatchewan, Hamilton and Markham could all sustain NHL franchises, thus moving some of the less desirable US based teams north .. doubt it can happen under Bettman's watch .. he is all about developing "violence" on ice to attract and hold a less educated American TV audience .. I think this is the reason that a "WWE on ICE" mood seems to permeate the officiating at times ..

Really? Is that what you think?

I think if this really were his aim, he would not have been the driving force behind the instigator penalty. I do agree that he makes decisions based on a desire to appeal to non-tradition hockey fans, but if anything, I believe he'd prefer less violence, rather than more.

I personally believe he'd be more than happy with an outright ban on fighting...
  • 3
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#584 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,259 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 September 2012 - 10:54 AM

No you can't..... The thing I don't get thougj is why in the fuxk would you wan't to play for a loser franchise

Phoenix has been his home for several years. He and his family are comfortable there.

Also, if ownership can be sorted out there, the team is actually fairly competitive. They went further than the Canucks last year....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#585 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,645 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 11:09 AM

Really? Is that what you think?

I think if this really were his aim, he would not have been the driving force behind the instigator penalty. I do agree that he makes decisions based on a desire to appeal to non-tradition hockey fans, but if anything, I believe he'd prefer less violence, rather than more.

I personally believe he'd be more than happy with an outright ban on fighting...


A lot of folks believe there is more "violence" on the ice without the instigator penalty .. it allows the cowardly types (not mentioning any names here) to play cheap and loose and not be help accountable .. I suppose it depends on how you define "violence" .. I will take good, hard hockey over the snively kind of hockey we have now ..

How many times have the long time hockey fans said, to the effect, that this kind of crap would not happen in the "good old days" when players were held accountable for their actions .. imagine Marchand rag-dolling Daniel pre-instigator? ..THAT is the kind of "violence" that is now allowed, even encouraged for the "fans" to enjoy ..

Edit: .. and YES .. that IS what I think, or I would not have written it .. -_-

Edited by Tearloch7, 09 September 2012 - 11:10 AM.

  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#586 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:27 PM

Well honestly, I have a bit of an anti-US-non-hockey-market bias myself. I resent the fact there are teams in places like Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Phoenix, Anaheim, Florida, etc but not in some places where hockey is #1.

I would like to see a team in Seattle as well, but that is about the only remaining place in the States I'd like to see get a franchise - and I think a number of US-based teams are inevitably going to fail in the long term. My only doubt regarding Seattle is a caution due the fact that they lost the Supersonics - and next to football and baseball, basketball is pretty much #3 - and gigantic in the US.

The point you raise about broadcast revenue might rule out Regina/Saskatoon, which is sad, considering the remarkable amount of NHLers Saskatchewan produces and how rabid their hockey fans are, as well as the prospects of another eastern team in Canada outside of Onterrible or Quebec. Small Canadian markets may even have more hockey fans than even the large US markets, although the US networks no doubt can pony up more dollars for broadcast rights - I just have to wonder what the actual ratings in the oddball US markets are (particularly when they aren't icing a winning team)?

Broadcast revenues a decade ago were only half of what the gate revenues in the NHL were. I wonder what the figures are today.

Here's an interesting study that maintains that Canada could sustain 12 franchises - they use Edmonton as a benchmark, as the NHL team with the smallest population, but which manages to generate more revenue than many US franchises (despite the on-ice product not having been very competitive.)

http://www.mowatcent...Research/31.pdf


Again I have to bring up the NHL business plan as to why small Canadian markets such as Quebec City do not make sense. Even tho Seattle is not PHX it is still a major media market as far as NBC is concerned. Indeed there are a number of existing NHL cities in the USA that are not worthy from your and my perspective. But we are hockey fans. NBC is a media company who wants to appeal to as many viewers as possible. They like most media companies are starved for content. Currently the NHL fills a void and they are prepared to pay $300 million a year to get their games. I don't think the Nordiques coming to LA sells as well as the Seattle 'Thunderbirds' (nice name).

$300 mil split 30 ways is a nice chunk of change for each franchise and pays a lot of payroll. The NHL already has the Canadian market in their pocket. Whether the CBC or Sportsnet carry the broadcast is almost irrelevent other than a few extra bucks when the contract renewal comes up. Attendance is a nice aspect of Canadian franchises but the ticket costs are already astronomical IMHO and how elastic is that demand? The USA media $ potential may never be fully realized compared to the NFL, MLB and the NBA but it makes the owners salivate thinking about it. In actual fact ticket prices could easily divert more fans into electronic media to get their hockey fix, American and Canadian. As long as the highly profitable NHL teams see value in continuing to subsidize less profitable venues then the current business plan will probably continue. They are risking to much to do otherwise.
  • 1

#587 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,645 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:35 PM

^ ^ ^ Well said, and sadly, it is probably true ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#588 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,764 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:37 PM

I think Portland would be a viable US option.
as for canada i don't know..if Edmonton can do it (mind you they have quit the History) i am sure there are several options that could support a new team.

Edited by surtur, 09 September 2012 - 12:39 PM.

  • 0
Release The KraKassian
Posted Image

#589 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 09 September 2012 - 01:19 PM

Again I have to bring up the NHL business plan as to why small Canadian markets such as Quebec City do not make sense. Even tho Seattle is not PHX it is still a major media market as far as NBC is concerned. Indeed there are a number of existing NHL cities in the USA that are not worthy from your and my perspective. But we are hockey fans. NBC is a media company who wants to appeal to as many viewers as possible. They like most media companies are starved for content. Currently the NHL fills a void and they are prepared to pay $300 million a year to get their games. I don't think the Nordiques coming to LA sells as well as the Seattle 'Thunderbirds' (nice name).

$300 mil split 30 ways is a nice chunk of change for each franchise and pays a lot of payroll. The NHL already has the Canadian market in their pocket. Whether the CBC or Sportsnet carry the broadcast is almost irrelevent other than a few extra bucks when the contract renewal comes up. Attendance is a nice aspect of Canadian franchises but the ticket costs are already astronomical IMHO and how elastic is that demand? The USA media $ potential may never be fully realized compared to the NFL, MLB and the NBA but it makes the owners salivate thinking about it. In actual fact ticket prices could easily divert more fans into electronic media to get their hockey fix, American and Canadian. As long as the highly profitable NHL teams see value in continuing to subsidize less profitable venues then the current business plan will probably continue. They are risking to much to do otherwise.


There is the contradiction in the owners position / which is divided - the highly profitable teams aren't terribly interested in adequately subsidizing the teams that are struggling financially. The current 150 million is not adequate - the owners are offering to increase that to 190 million - the players are willing to compromise their share if the revenue they concede goes into a 260 million revenue sharing pot. For me, the owners' position in this CBA negotiation seeks to service the NHL's most powerful and profitable franchises - instead of the league's richest franchises compromising, they are expecting the players to subsidize the weaker US markets. However it was Bettman and the league that decided to move into those oddball markets in the first place.
  • 0

#590 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Joined: 18-December 11

Posted 09 September 2012 - 01:41 PM

Phoenix has been his home for several years. He and his family are comfortable there.

Also, if ownership can be sorted out there, the team is actually fairly competitive. They went further than the Canucks last year....


They were competitive before they let go of Ray Whitney and Taylor Pyatt and replaced them with David Moss.

Even at 40, Whitney was their highest scoring forward with 77 points. And Pyatt was a good role player for them. David Moss on the other hand is a third or fourth line plug.

For a team that struggles to score already, letting go of your top scoring forward is not gonna help. Plus there's rumors swirling that they wanna trade Yandle too, which would hurt their offensive output even more.

Basically, unless Smith repeats the stellar year he had last season, I don't see them doing much. Might even miss the playoffs.
  • 0

#591 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,870 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 09 September 2012 - 02:05 PM

A lot of folks believe there is more "violence" on the ice without the instigator penalty .. it allows the cowardly types (not mentioning any names here) to play cheap and loose and not be help accountable .. I suppose it depends on how you define "violence" .. I will take good, hard hockey over the snively kind of hockey we have now ..

How many times have the long time hockey fans said, to the effect, that this kind of crap would not happen in the "good old days" when players were held accountable for their actions .. imagine Marchand rag-dolling Daniel pre-instigator? ..THAT is the kind of "violence" that is now allowed, even encouraged for the "fans" to enjoy ..

Edit: .. and YES .. that IS what I think, or I would not have written it .. -_-

In that regard I disagree. The official position is they're trying to take the unnecessary violence out of the game to make it more marketable, and there's some truth to that. The other side would be to increase fighting rather than to increase cheap shots and illegal hits, as that would be something the uninitiated would be able to understand. You'd then be able to draw from the wrestling/boxing/mma crowd - the only way it could get more interesting to that type of American is if you found a way for the players to do nothing but left hand turns for 3 hours.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#592 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,050 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 09 September 2012 - 02:10 PM

In that regard I disagree. The official position is they're trying to take the unnecessary violence out of the game to make it more marketable, and there's some truth to that. The other side would be to increase fighting rather than to increase cheap shots and illegal hits, as that would be something the uninitiated would be able to understand. You'd then be able to draw from the wrestling/boxing/mma crowd - the only way it could get more interesting to that type of American is if you found a way for the players to do nothing but left hand turns for 3 hours.


Or deep fry it.

But you are right. Considering mma's massive popularity you would think that removing the instigator rule, potentially increasing fight numbers at least for a year or two until the rats were dealt with, would draw more of a crowd than career injuring cheap shots.

I question if the removal of the instigator rule would even spike the amount of fights significantly anyway.

Edited by riffraff, 09 September 2012 - 02:15 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#593 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 09 September 2012 - 04:49 PM

There is the contradiction in the owners position / which is divided - the highly profitable teams aren't terribly interested in adequately subsidizing the teams that are struggling financially. The current 150 million is not adequate - the owners are offering to increase that to 190 million - the players are willing to compromise their share if the revenue they concede goes into a 260 million revenue sharing pot. For me, the owners' position in this CBA negotiation seeks to service the NHL's most powerful and profitable franchises - instead of the league's richest franchises compromising, they are expecting the players to subsidize the weaker US markets. However it was Bettman and the league that decided to move into those oddball markets in the first place.

Not to belabour the point but you are kinda looking at this from the players perspective a little bit to much. I don't think for a minute that the NHLPA said 'Gary don't put a franchise in Columbus it won't fly'. The players benefited just as much as the NHL. How can the players be subsidizing the poorer markets? Are you suggesting that by cutting the players % under the CBA that that would be a subsidy? I have no idea of what the Aquilini's return on investment is on the Canucks. Under the CBA there is a method of accounting for the revenue streams generated but I do not know what is included. ie the TO Laffers have more invested capital than the Yotes. Does it mean they are justified in making more return? If so how do you create a level playing field? At what point does the ROI become excessive? 10%? 15% At what point does the player's % become excessive and how do you determine that figure?

If the NHL's business plan is to compete with the NFL, MLB and the NBA for media contracts then taking comparables from all the leagues might be considered. You are critical about some of the markets in the USA that the NHL has located in. Capturing these markets is I am sure in their business plan to deliver the major markets to media buyers. This is business so there are no gurantees of success. As someone mentioned before the NBA's Seattle SuperSonics moved from that city. Fair enough to argue over the level of support that smaller markets should expect. Obviously if there is no one to play, the bigger markets would be in trouble and media would have fewer slots to fill. It is also true that at the end of the day this is about making money. The NY Yankees will win more penants than the Kansas City Royals and they will make far more money. The key consideration is that the Royals are trying to win and not simply cashing their subsidy cheques sent them by MLB. I am sure the NHL has looked at this scenario and are aware of those pitfalls.

If NHL revenue per team is averaging $100 to $110 million ($3.3 billion/30 = $110 mil), and the CBA payroll max is $70 mil the money is going out fast. The Habs were sold for over $500 mil a few years back. A 15% return on invested capital is $75 mil. Even the lowly Yotes sold at $170 mil would require a ROI of $25 mil. The numbers aren't working.
  • 1

#594 .Naslund

.Naslund

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 09

Posted 09 September 2012 - 05:50 PM

Excsue me gents but I'm not sure, am I in the Doan thread?

Edited by .Naslund, 09 September 2012 - 05:50 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#595 niklas

niklas

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 236 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 09

Posted 09 September 2012 - 05:53 PM

Excsue me gents but I'm not sure, am I in the Doan thread?

No. This is the thread to discuss possible locations that can support an NHL team. The Doan thread is that way ----->
  • 0

#596 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,259 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 September 2012 - 06:24 PM

A lot of folks believe there is more "violence" on the ice without the instigator penalty .. it allows the cowardly types (not mentioning any names here) to play cheap and loose and not be help accountable .. I suppose it depends on how you define "violence" .. I will take good, hard hockey over the snively kind of hockey we have now ..

How many times have the long time hockey fans said, to the effect, that this kind of crap would not happen in the "good old days" when players were held accountable for their actions .. imagine Marchand rag-dolling Daniel pre-instigator? ..THAT is the kind of "violence" that is now allowed, even encouraged for the "fans" to enjoy ..

Edit: .. and YES .. that IS what I think, or I would not have written it .. -_-

I suppose an argument could be made that the instigator penalty has made the league more violent, rather than less, but if you truly believe that this is what Bettman intended, the we'll have to agree to disagree.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#597 Stefan

Stefan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,398 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 03

Posted 09 September 2012 - 06:27 PM

A
  • 0

gallery_9059_470_12899.jpg


(1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.



 

#598 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,645 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 06:44 PM

I suppose an argument could be made that the instigator penalty has made the league more violent, rather than less, but if you truly believe that this is what Bettman intended, the we'll have to agree to disagree.


Sounds fair to me .. -_-
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#599 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,811 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 09 September 2012 - 06:57 PM

I want to see a team come to Houston. They have the population, they built an arena that houses 17,800 for hockey, and it is one of the areas in the US that is still booming economically. Plus, the players will love having no state income tax. For some contracts it may save them almost a quarter million or more a year.
  • 0

#600 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:23 PM

I want to see a team come to Houston. They have the population, they built an arena that houses 17,800 for hockey, and it is one of the areas in the US that is still booming economically. Plus, the players will love having no state income tax. For some contracts it may save them almost a quarter million or more a year.

That would divide the Stars fans in half, lol. It would definitely ramp up the interest in the state. Texas always goes big, so it COULD be a decent destination, but I think more northern markets have better cases to get a team. Seattle is my first choice.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.