Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Kesler/Bieksa/Lou Twitter


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#121 mbal23

mbal23

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,621 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:33 PM

You think cutting Bettman's salary will fix the problem? There's an 8 mil hole hey? wow just wow

Your lack of business savy is unbeleivable. Go learn why they put a term on the cap last time. To see if either side was getting screwed by the agreement then to correct it.

You fail to understand the only reason players get paid is because fans go and owners pay 150 mil min for a team. They put up the capital risk they deserve and honest chance to make a profit, otherwise why buy a hockey team? Then what happens? No players paid, no league right..follow the logic buddy.

I blame the players for not accepting reality, that they are being paid too high for the business to survive. In most industries what happens in that case?

1. Paycuts - 1st step
2. Layoffs (cant happen in hockey really) - 2nd if pay cuts dont work
3. Businesses go under - happens if 1/2 don't stem the tide

why dont you i love my player fans understand simple business logic. Hockey teams are not some magical right in north america, that owners owe us to put a team in that constantly loses money. Eventually they will say frack this, and no one esle will want to buy a business that loses money.

What then? Players gonna complain about 4 mil for 40pts?

I may not have much business savy, maybe because I'm 18 but atleast I'm not stupid enough to believe that business deserve a profit. And how about touching on my first point instead of being a smart ass. Or maybe why you think restaurants will die without the NHL since so many strive without it already? And you think they should cut bettmans salary? I'm sure it could only hurt to pay the Commish more than the players that make the game possible. And I ask you where would the owners be if their were no players?

Edited by mbal23, 20 September 2012 - 01:35 PM.

  • 2

#122 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:03 PM

I think its unfair for people to lose the right to complain about salary expectations just cause they make a certain amount. Just cause they have a talent that yields them high potential salaries, doesn't mean they should lose the right to earn the amount they feel they deserve. Which is essentially your main argument.


And yet, there's a hell of a lot of people upset at corporations and members of government.
  • 1

#123 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:15 PM

I may not have much business savy, maybe because I'm 18 but atleast I'm not stupid enough to believe that business deserve a profit. And how about touching on my first point instead of being a smart ass. Or maybe why you think restaurants will die without the NHL since so many strive without it already? And you think they should cut bettmans salary? I'm sure it could only hurt to pay the Commish more than the players that make the game possible. And I ask you where would the owners be if their were no players?


A man who pays 150 million doesn't deserve to be able to run his business to make a profit?

Ok so what is the man buying the business for son? So you can go watch a game? You think he's running a charity?

23 teams are losing money, so 23 owners should continue to donate to players?

Son your 18 years are showing. Owners buy teams for 1. The love of the game 2. Status 3. Profits

As you can imagine, when you continue to bleed money, the first two start getting less and less important.

This is not a charity it is a business. If businesses lose money constantly, eventually people say I don't want to be in that business and there is no longer a business. You are too young to know about this, but there was once a soccer league in North America called the NASL, it was bigger than European soccer. It went under, why? Because of the same issues, players paid to much, teams bleeding money, teams fold, it took 25 yrs to see another league in North America and its no where close to the level now.

Further, you think the hole in the NHL is 8 million (Bettmans salary)? Im pretty sure the gulf is alot wider, otherwise most of the owners wouldn't care.

Also, if you read what I said, no one said restaurants die. But again, businesses can survive on cyclicality. If the business produces exception results during the hockey season, that can offset slower parts of the year. If that exceptional period goes, well then it gets hard to survive right???? resto's typically don't make alot of money to begin with (its a high failure rate bus, ie why banks don't lend to them, so tough to begin with, take away the good parts of the year...what happens?).

Moreover, those people working in those bars see less tips, something they rely on, people working concessions, parking lose jobs.

I understand you are 18, but you need to think a bit deeper about the issues. Look at all the stakeholders, this will help you understand its not just a game, its not something that philanthropists are giving to hockey fans for their enjoyment regardless of how much money they lose, nor do they owe that to us, its something that affects other people's livelehoods outside the game, and all this within the context of men playing a game and scrubs making a million a year (4th liners).

Is that poor to you?

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 20 September 2012 - 04:26 PM.

  • 0

#124 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:23 PM

I'm not saying that it should be split. But the OP was saying that the players can't expect to get paid what they do, because there are only 7/30 teams that are profitable.

But "profitability" isn't a concern of the players, who are employees. The business owners' job is to use the asset to generate profit for them. If they don't/can't do that, it's their fault, and not the union's.


Yes but the players do get a split don't they, and that's what they are arguing against, a decrease in that split.

Moreoever, if you are an employee of a business you sure as hell better be interested in the profitability of your company and your industry, just go ask some of my ex colleagues, people who worked on wall st with me son.

If those businesses lose money and continually do so, you eventually don't have a job. These players seem to think there is an endless supply of human beings willing to buy a negative return business for 150 million so they can play a game and make millions, its absurd.

I agree, as do the owners that it is the owners job to turn a profit with his assets. But when the rules of the game are such that you can't turn a profit because your assets cost too much, well eventually you just get out of the business don't you, because you can't generate a return.

I am flabergasted by the underlying view in many poster's comments that appears to suggest owners owe fans a hockey team whether they lose money or make money, that its almost a god given right to have an nhl team in your city bc you're canadian. it is not a charity, it is a business.

When businesses continue to lose money what happens folks answer that? And moreover is anyone here suggesting that paying a 4th liner $1million is not overpaid? Thats the bottom, they can't afford a cut all the way up? So the team can survive? That's how real business works folks.

You don't want to accept that, ok, well say goodbye to hockey in ten years. Bettman is saving this game, as much as he looks like a troll, is annoying etc, he is a smart business man and he understands this.

he is not blinded by some puppy love for a player or a jersey, what he sees is an industry on a path that cannot be sustained and his job is to ensure the viabiity of this industry long term and he is doing his job,.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 20 September 2012 - 04:39 PM.

  • 0

#125 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:30 PM

Exactly, that's what I've been trying to get across to the OP. He's too adept at ignoring that so he can continue with his hypothesis that they blocked him because his 'honest' tweets got under their skin and that's why they blocked him. The tweets are there for all to see (I posted them on page two) and it's clear any public figure can't respond to or read all tweets and they'll happily block people who spam them to lessen all the notifications. Add to that he was clearly antagonistic and it was a quick decision for them regardless of facts or not.

Exactly, that's what I've been trying to get across to the OP. He's too adept at ignoring that so he can continue with his hypothesis that they blocked him because his 'honest' tweets got under their skin and that's why they blocked him. The tweets are there for all to see (I posted them on page two) and it's clear any public figure can't respond to or read all tweets and they'll happily block people who spam them to lessen all the notifications. Add to that he was clearly antagonistic and it was a quick decision for them regardless of facts or not.


Notice who the league singled out as the biggest diver in the game? I think he wears 17 on our team. Sure call me what you want, it doesn't affect one thing, we have a douche who is a primadona as our second line center that clearly is lacking respect from his peers within his industry.

Guess I'm right :)

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 20 September 2012 - 04:30 PM.

  • 1

#126 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:32 PM

A man who pays 150 million doesn't deserve to be able to run his business to make a profit?

Ok so what is the man buying the business for son? So you can go watch a game? You think he's running a charity?

23 teams are losing money, so 23 owners should continue to donate to players?

Son your 18 years are showing. Owners buy teams for 1. The love of the game 2.Status 3. Profits

As you can imagine, when you continue to bleed money, the first two start getting less and less important.

This is not a charity it is a business. If businesses lose money contstantly, eventually people say I don't want to be in that business and there is no longer a business. You are too young to know about this but there was once a soccer league in North America called the NASL, it was bigger than European soccer. It went under, why? Because of the same issues, players paid to much, teams bleeding money, teams fold, it tok 25 yrs to see another league in North America and its no where close to the level now.

Further, you think the hole in the NHL is 8 million (Bettmans salary)? Im pretty sure the gulf is alot wider, otherwise most of the owners wouldn't care.

Further, if you read what I said, no one said restaurants die. But again, businesses can survive on cyclicality. If the business produces exception results during the hockey season, that can offset slower parts of the year. If that exceptional period goes, well then it gets hard right????

Moreover, those people working in those bars see less tips, something they rely on, people working concessions, parking lose jobs.

I understand you are 18, but you need to think a bit deeper about the issues. Look at all the stakeholders and think through issues, this will help you understand its not just a game, its not something that philanthropists are giving to hockey fans for their enjoyment regardless of how much money they lose, nor do they owe that to us, its something that affects other people's livelehoods outside the game, and all this within the context of men playing a game and scrubs making a million a year (4th liners). Is that poor to you?


A man who pays $150M should have more of a business sense than most of these owners in markets like Glendale, whoops no owner there yet, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, New Jersey, Minnesota, Long Island, Anaheim, San Jose, and Tampa just to name a few. All of these owners have signed off on contracts to players that if they can't afford to pay, why are they getting into the game? They charge next to nothing for tickets, play for the most part in front of family and friends, and then expect to turn a profit. This means they are donating to players, when they in fact have no business in doing so. It all boils down to how well Gary Bettman and previous commisioners vetted these cities to see how viable they are as HOCKEY markets. You got one of those statements right, status. What does Wang in Long Island know about hockey?

Edited by chisoxin12, 20 September 2012 - 04:33 PM.

  • 0

#127 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:47 PM

Notice who the league singled out as the biggest diver in the game? I think he wears 17 on our team. Sure call me what you want, it doesn't affect one thing, we have a douche who is a primadona as our second line center that clearly is lacking respect from his peers within his industry.

Guess I'm right :)


I don't think 17 gives a damn about what you think right now, nor has he ever.

What are you gonna do...camp outside his Yaletown apartment and yell "you're a phony" when he walks out?

Edited by Common sense, 20 September 2012 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0

#128 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:53 PM

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do you understand that players chirp each other constantly in the dressing room and on the ice. He would sooner sue you for stalking him, before he would have to lift a hand and put you in your place.


Dude, do you understand sarcasm? lol..

yes I am going to go find KB3 start a fight with him to sue him. Lol...ps, you can't sue people for stalking you...perhaps get restraining orders for crazies yes, but suing, no lol....
  • 0

#129 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:54 PM

I don't think 17 gives a damn about what you think right now, nor has he ever.

What are you gonna do...camp outside his Yaletown apartment and yell "you're a phony" when he walks out?


Yes thats right
OMFG

How old are most of the posters on this site? 12?

And that's the point he should care what fans think since we pay his salary, thanks for agreeing.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 20 September 2012 - 04:54 PM.

  • 0

#130 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:54 PM

Also, you do realize what you are doing is trolling the aforementioned players, right? No respect given to trolls.
  • 0

#131 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:55 PM

Yes thats right
OMFG

How old are most of the posters on this site? 12?

And that's the point he should care what fans think, thanks for agreeing.


Age is not a determinant of maturity, and it seems like you lack the latter. You incessantly whine on and on about how some players blocked a spammer on Twitter, and we're supposed to see you on the higher ground?

Sorry...not cutting it.

Edited by Common sense, 20 September 2012 - 05:00 PM.

  • 1

#132 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:06 PM

A man who pays $150M should have more of a business sense than most of these owners in markets like Glendale, whoops no owner there yet, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, New Jersey, Minnesota, Long Island, Anaheim, San Jose, and Tampa just to name a few. All of these owners have signed off on contracts to players that if they can't afford to pay, why are they getting into the game? They charge next to nothing for tickets, play for the most part in front of family and friends, and then expect to turn a profit. This means they are donating to players, when they in fact have no business in doing so. It all boils down to how well Gary Bettman and previous commisioners vetted these cities to see how viable they are as HOCKEY markets. You got one of those statements right, status. What does Wang in Long Island know about hockey?


So therefore the players should understand how good they have it correct? Thats the part of the equation you are missing. Therefore they should realize, hey we are being overpaid.

Moreover, Ohio is a terrific hockey state, Minnesota one of the best. NJ has had a winner for decades and was there before Bettman, as were the Islanders (Bossy/Trottier ring a bell?), San Jose sells out constantly, terrific hockey market, ever been to a game there? And do you want to see a league of 10 teams? You might not have one then.

Sure there are some markets that don't belong, and yes the owners have to take some blame for offering such contracts no issue. But you're not understanding why this is happening, the real issues.

Owners can't tell other owners to not pay up. thats collusion and illegal. Ego does drive alot of decisions, and some teams may have deeper pockets than others. So one owner can drive up salaries simply based on the fact agents use comparables as their way to assess their client's worth.

So, the league looks at the CBA and says, we tried to limit salary growth last time, but its not working as intended for a number of reasons, one stated above, terms, free agency etc. We need to address it so there are still 30 viable franchises. If a few are hurting we can work around it but then the MAJORITY are, there is something wrong systemically that needs to be addressed. They have to codify handcuffs on certain owners to ensure that the league as a whole stays viable.

Its easy to cherry pick situations like Phoenix, Wang has been a terrific owner, he knows alot about hockey sir. He has kept that team for those fans in that city because of tradition, he hasn't been making money, remember our owners before Acquilini? Weren't they losing money and rumours of a move right? So you are more important than someone who's a fan in Long Island? 10 yrs ago we sucked and were about to me moved.

Wake up.
  • 0

#133 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:07 PM

Age is not a determinant of maturity, and it seems like you lack the latter. You incessantly whine on and on about how some players blocked a spammer on Twitter, and we're supposed to see you on the higher ground?

Sorry...not cutting it.


Actually the discussion has moved well past that, you seem to be the only one whining/harping on it because someone insulted the focus of your bromance.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 20 September 2012 - 05:07 PM.

  • 0

#134 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:17 PM

So therefore the players should understand how good they have it correct? Thats the part of the equation you are missing. Therefore they should realize, hey we are being overpaid.

Moreover, Ohio is a terrific hockey state, Minnesota one of the best. NJ has had a winner for decades and was there before Bettman, as were the Islanders (Bossy/Trottier ring a bell?), San Jose sells out constantly, terrific hockey market, ever been to a game there? And do you want to see a league of 10 teams? You might not have one then.

Sure there are some markets that don't belong, and yes the owners have to take some blame for offering such contracts no issue. But you're not understanding why this is happening, the real issues.

Owners can't tell other owners to not pay up. thats collusion and illegal. Ego does drive alot of decisions, and some teams may have deeper pockets than others. So one owner can drive up salaries simply based on the fact agents use comparables as their way to assess their client's worth.

So, the league looks at the CBA and says, we tried to limit salary growth last time, but its not working as intended for a number of reasons, one stated above, terms, free agency etc. We need to address it so there are still 30 viable franchises. If a few are hurting we can work around it but then the MAJORITY are, there is something wrong systemically that needs to be addressed. They have to codify handcuffs on certain owners to ensure that the league as a whole stays viable.

Its easy to cherry pick situations like Phoenix, Wang has been a terrific owner, he knows alot about hockey sir. He has kept that team for those fans in that city because of tradition, he hasn't been making money, remember our owners before Acquilini? Weren't they losing money and rumours of a move right? So you are more important than someone who's a fan in Long Island? 10 yrs ago we sucked and were about to me moved.

Wake up.


  • 0

#135 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:21 PM

l have no clue what is going on with this board, please delete my above post. Thanks
  • 0

#136 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 07:36 PM

Yes but the players do get a split don't they, and that's what they are arguing against, a decrease in that split.

Moreoever, if you are an employee of a business you sure as hell better be interested in the profitability of your company and your industry, just go ask some of my ex colleagues, people who worked on wall st with me son.


LOL @ the constant Wall Street drops, like it somehow adds credibility to your posts. "Wall Street" has needed to be bailed out multiple times throughout history because they take trades with risk that they don't understand. I earn my living day-trading futures (hence the name). Wall Street does not impress me. Wall Street is who I take money from every day.

Back to the topic at hand - they get the split that they do because it was what the owners coerced them into accepting 8 years ago. That's the split that the owners wanted. Remember how "cost certainty" was the phrase of the day back then? It ain't up to Rick Nash to make his owner money, besides the obvious charity and other public appearances. If the Columbus Blue Jackets are a failure, that's the owner's fault, who assumed that risk when he bought the team. Which, by the way, is almost always a vanity purchase for the owners, and never one of economic fundamentals.

But when the rules of the game are such that you can't turn a profit because your assets cost too much, well eventually you just get out of the business don't you, because you can't generate a return.


Fine - sell it. There's always that strategy for the owner, is there not?

When businesses continue to lose money what happens folks answer that? And moreover is anyone here suggesting that paying a 4th liner $1million is not overpaid? Thats the bottom, they can't afford a cut all the way up? So the team can survive? That's how real business works folks.


I'll suggest that the 4th liner earning $1M isn't overpaid. Why? Because there was a GM, who is employed by the owner, that was willing to allocate that amount of dollars to him.

What better measure of "value" is there than what someone else is willing to pay for it? If nobody wanted to employ that 4th line player for $1M per year, nobody would sign him to that deal. Welcome to the realities of a market.

You don't want to accept that, ok, well say goodbye to hockey in ten years. Bettman is saving this game, as much as he looks like a troll, is annoying etc, he is a smart business man and he understands this.


This "smart business man" is the same guy that moved the heavens and the earth to put franchises in Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, and the like. Bettman knows nothing about hockey, and it shows. He's paid $8M to be the owners' bad cop. Not a bad gig - and you're saying that a 4th liner earning $1M is overpaid?
  • 0

#137 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:04 PM

LOL @ the constant Wall Street drops, like it somehow adds credibility to your posts. "Wall Street" has needed to be bailed out multiple times throughout history because they take trades with risk that they don't understand. I earn my living day-trading futures (hence the name). Wall Street does not impress me. Wall Street is who I take money from every day.

Back to the topic at hand - they get the split that they do because it was what the owners coerced them into accepting 8 years ago. That's the split that the owners wanted. Remember how "cost certainty" was the phrase of the day back then? It ain't up to Rick Nash to make his owner money, besides the obvious charity and other public appearances. If the Columbus Blue Jackets are a failure, that's the owner's fault, who assumed that risk when he bought the team. Which, by the way, is almost always a vanity purchase for the owners, and never one of economic fundamentals.



Fine - sell it. There's always that strategy for the owner, is there not?



I'll suggest that the 4th liner earning $1M isn't overpaid. Why? Because there was a GM, who is employed by the owner, that was willing to allocate that amount of dollars to him.

What better measure of "value" is there than what someone else is willing to pay for it? If nobody wanted to employ that 4th line player for $1M per year, nobody would sign him to that deal. Welcome to the realities of a market.



This "smart business man" is the same guy that moved the heavens and the earth to put franchises in Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, and the like. Bettman knows nothing about hockey, and it shows. He's paid $8M to be the owners' bad cop. Not a bad gig - and you're saying that a 4th liner earning $1M is overpaid?


Actually no, its a point about wall st. you can choose to use your own biases to determine how that affects your mindset, clearly the only one trying to boast here is you. Sign of a weak argument is starting with an insult.

Second, you would know if you 'took money from wall st' that your comment is a paradox, since those engaged in what you suggest you do (and I highly doubt it, you're probably a kid in uni who just learned about futures lol) are considered wall st. Wall st. is not a St. only, those who have worked in the industry understand that, its an idea. This kinda proves to me you're full of it lol..but I digress.

As for your argument on the split, agreed. However, you are ignoring a very basic issue. There was a TERM IN CBA FOR A REASON. That agreement was negotiated and the next 7 yrs were to see how it worked out. If the PARTNERSHIP was too heavily favoured one way or the other, then a renogiation would be needed. Clearly that is the case.

Moreoever, paying the $1mil to a 4th liner, is a 'trickle down' effect. If you understood how people are paid in the game, or anything about valuation, you would know that in that industry people are paid off 'comps'. So if the guy on the second line getting 50 pts gets 4.5 million, it trickles down through the rest of the team. There is also a 'floor' in the CBA so even if an owner is bleeding money he has to pay a certain level of salary to his team, so even there he doesn't even have the ability to go with mid level talent and hope to out coach, compete other teams. And we know that wouldn't work, all that would happen is you get a have and have not league, where some teams become developmental teams, getting all the best picks then losing them to free agency when they can't re-sign them. Again, not sustainable as fans will say screw this as they began to do in Edmonton before the cap.

The point here is clearly to reign in salaries to a more reasonable level where players are still paid handsomely to PLAY a game they love, owners have a chance at making a profit, and hockey is sustainable in the long term. A person who understands any sort of business would get this, you sir sound like a university student with puppy love for your team, and that's fine. You certainly don't have any business sense.

Further, selling a hockey team is not easy. You think 1. The NHL just lets anyone in? So its a bit of a closed market that way, hard to sell or buy as witnessed by Phoenix, Atlanta, Hamilton, so easier said than done. Again, another reason why there needs to be some sort of control, since its not a free market. 2. You think there is a strong market for $150 million businesses that bleed money? Lol....again business savvy friend.

But no, owners are here to make you happy by providing some charity that subsidizes player's lifestyles and provide you with your entertainment while they lose money.

You clearly have no idea what they hell you are talking about.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 20 September 2012 - 10:19 PM.

  • 0

#138 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,990 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:45 PM

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#139 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,575 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:01 PM

Actually the discussion has moved well past that, you seem to be the only one whining/harping on it because someone insulted the focus of your bromance.


Your post today at 4:30pm seems otherwise...y'know, the one where you ranted about how Kesler lacks character and you proclaimed yourself to be right.
  • 0

#140 schlaBAM

schlaBAM

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,237 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:39 AM

this thread amused me.
please, do continue!
  • 0

Posted Image


XBL: canucks4lyfe


#141 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:01 AM

Posted Image



kissy kiss to kessy kess hey...

hope you get a kiss on the cheek from him boy, then you can never wash your cheek again

:frantic:
  • 0

#142 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:01 AM

Your post today at 4:30pm seems otherwise...y'know, the one where you ranted about how Kesler lacks character and you proclaimed yourself to be right.


:bored:
  • 0

#143 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:53 AM

Actually no, its a point about wall st. you can choose to use your own biases to determine how that affects your mindset, clearly the only one trying to boast here is you. Sign of a weak argument is starting with an insult.

Second, you would know if you 'took money from wall st' that your comment is a paradox, since those engaged in what you suggest you do (and I highly doubt it, you're probably a kid in uni who just learned about futures lol) are considered wall st. Wall st. is not a St. only, those who have worked in the industry understand that, its an idea. This kinda proves to me you're full of it lol..but I digress.


When I say "Wall Street" I mean the institutions that take the other sides of my trades every day. A retail trader like me, trading his own money independently, is NOT "Wall Street", my account size is far too small for any of them to even care that I exist.

Moreoever, paying the $1mil to a 4th liner, is a 'trickle down' effect. If you understood how people are paid in the game, or anything about valuation, you would know that in that industry people are paid off 'comps'. So if the guy on the second line getting 50 pts gets 4.5 million, it trickles down through the rest of the team. There is also a 'floor' in the CBA so even if an owner is bleeding money he has to pay a certain level of salary to his team, so even there he doesn't even have the ability to go with mid level talent and hope to out coach, compete other teams.


That's not a RULE, though. If Alex Edler wants $6.0M per year because player $X is making $Y, does Mike Gillis have to sign him? NO! There's always a choice. You have $X available every year to ice a team with, and it's management's job (who was hired by their owner) to do just that.

Owners who are "bleeding money" are propped-up by the Toronto's and the Vancouver's of the league.

The point here is clearly to reign in salaries to a more reasonable level where players are still paid handsomely to PLAY a game they love, owners have a chance at making a profit, and hockey is sustainable in the long term. A person who understands any sort of business would get this, you sir sound like a university student with puppy love for your team, and that's fine. You certainly don't have any business sense.


If HRR is growing, where is the basis for rolling back salaries? Have expenses grown as much as HRR has over the past 8 years? Unlikely.

Owners DO have a chance at making a profit. Why do you say that they don't? Vancouver was not profitable when McCaw was the owner, which wasn't too long ago.

But no, owners are here to make you happy by providing some charity that subsidizes player's lifestyles and provide you with your entertainment while they lose money.


No, the owners bought a business, at their own discretion, and assumed that risk. If it went the other way, they'd be local heroes, swimming in money, and laughing all the way to the bank. The fact that they're bleeding money should've been one of the possible circumstances associated with ownership; which, since they're so business savvy as you say, I hope they would've considered before ploughing all that money into the franchise.

Unless...as I said before...could it be that owning a sports team is a vanity/ego play, far more than it is one of strong fundamental economic reasoning?!

You clearly have no idea what they hell you are talking about.


Says the guy who's calling Gary Bettman, the man who championed the NHL into markets like Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, etc., some sort of "business guru". Right.
  • 0

#144 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:26 PM

When I say "Wall Street" I mean the institutions that take the other sides of my trades every day. A retail trader like me, trading his own money independently, is NOT "Wall Street", my account size is far too small for any of them to even care that I exist.



That's not a RULE, though. If Alex Edler wants $6.0M per year because player $X is making $Y, does Mike Gillis have to sign him? NO! There's always a choice. You have $X available every year to ice a team with, and it's management's job (who was hired by their owner) to do just that.

Owners who are "bleeding money" are propped-up by the Toronto's and the Vancouver's of the league.



If HRR is growing, where is the basis for rolling back salaries? Have expenses grown as much as HRR has over the past 8 years? Unlikely.

Owners DO have a chance at making a profit. Why do you say that they don't? Vancouver was not profitable when McCaw was the owner, which wasn't too long ago.



No, the owners bought a business, at their own discretion, and assumed that risk. If it went the other way, they'd be local heroes, swimming in money, and laughing all the way to the bank. The fact that they're bleeding money should've been one of the possible circumstances associated with ownership; which, since they're so business savvy as you say, I hope they would've considered before ploughing all that money into the franchise.

Unless...as I said before...could it be that owning a sports team is a vanity/ego play, far more than it is one of strong fundamental economic reasoning?!



Says the guy who's calling Gary Bettman, the man who championed the NHL into markets like Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, etc., some sort of "business guru". Right.


Simple Math

Clearly if you are losing money and your revenues are increasing your expenses are rising faster than your revenue growth...Not sure what part of that you don't want to accept.

Yes GM's don't have to sign players to certain amounts, but if the Sedin's didn't take the home town discount, Burrows, (Edler likely going to have to) etc, then would we have kept them? No, so the logical outcome is that you have a league of haves and have nots.

How would you like to watch the canucks with out Hank and Daniel, Burrows, etc? We'd be back in the Keenan days wouldn't we?

Can't argue the decisions of Bettman in his placement of some teams, but its easy to argue in hindsight, he was trying to grow the game in big cities that support major league franchises and have the population/money to maintain them. Mr. Bettman has also lead the league to that same incredible revenue growth you suggest and a huge contract from NBC. So you can't argue both sides of the same coin...again easy to cherry pick to support arguments.

Clearly losing teams are not propped up as this is one of the issues the NHLPA has mentioned they are trying to address in their counter proposal, fact checking sir.

Sure, owning a team is a vanity ego play, no one suggested otherwise, its a factor but so is making money. Rich men don't stay rich by putting money in losing enterprises, I have stated this before. Eventually people will not want to invest money in a losing proposition (NASL maybe?)

Yes owners bought a business, but if the rules of the game are such that they can't afford to compete without losing money, only those with the deepest pockets/willingness to bleed/biggest egos will win. Those teams that don't have that will become feeders for those 4-5 teams.

If you haven't noticed the parity in the league over the last 10 yrs has improved significantly well, not sure what you're watching. Just like the NFL this is what keeps fans engaged in the long term, that year to year, even if you have an off season, you might win the cup the next, thats how a league survives. When you have end up having dynasties, have and have nots, expensive tickets, economic challenges in north america, alternatives for your entertainment dollars, and your team is losing well eventually the team disappears (grizzlies anyone? raptors soon enough?).

My final word on this. Owners will not support a league that makes them lose money. Its a stupid decision. They are not here to provide charity to you or I or the players because we love hockey. Why don't you pay $500 a seat instead, that way the player makes his money, the owner the profit and you can watch your game. You don't want to do that right? But you expect the owner to subsidize your entertainment, the player, and lose money.

Makes zero sense to me. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I have bought, run. and sold numerous businesses in my life. If you want to at least maintain your wealth you need to break even, if you want to increase it you need to make money. If you're in an industry that causes you to lose money year after year, after a certain amount of time, you will just exit, and there isn't often buyers for businesses in industries that are constantly losing money.

Again profits not revenues, profits matter.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 21 September 2012 - 04:27 PM.

  • 0

#145 sameer666

sameer666

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:22 AM

Simple Math

Clearly if you are losing money and your revenues are increasing your expenses are rising faster than your revenue growth...Not sure what part of that you don't want to accept.

Yes GM's don't have to sign players to certain amounts, but if the Sedin's didn't take the home town discount, Burrows, (Edler likely going to have to) etc, then would we have kept them? No, so the logical outcome is that you have a league of haves and have nots.

How would you like to watch the canucks with out Hank and Daniel, Burrows, etc? We'd be back in the Keenan days wouldn't we?

Can't argue the decisions of Bettman in his placement of some teams, but its easy to argue in hindsight, he was trying to grow the game in big cities that support major league franchises and have the population/money to maintain them. Mr. Bettman has also lead the league to that same incredible revenue growth you suggest and a huge contract from NBC. So you can't argue both sides of the same coin...again easy to cherry pick to support arguments.

Clearly losing teams are not propped up as this is one of the issues the NHLPA has mentioned they are trying to address in their counter proposal, fact checking sir.

Sure, owning a team is a vanity ego play, no one suggested otherwise, its a factor but so is making money. Rich men don't stay rich by putting money in losing enterprises, I have stated this before. Eventually people will not want to invest money in a losing proposition (NASL maybe?)

Yes owners bought a business, but if the rules of the game are such that they can't afford to compete without losing money, only those with the deepest pockets/willingness to bleed/biggest egos will win. Those teams that don't have that will become feeders for those 4-5 teams.

If you haven't noticed the parity in the league over the last 10 yrs has improved significantly well, not sure what you're watching. Just like the NFL this is what keeps fans engaged in the long term, that year to year, even if you have an off season, you might win the cup the next, thats how a league survives. When you have end up having dynasties, have and have nots, expensive tickets, economic challenges in north america, alternatives for your entertainment dollars, and your team is losing well eventually the team disappears (grizzlies anyone? raptors soon enough?).

My final word on this. Owners will not support a league that makes them lose money. Its a stupid decision. They are not here to provide charity to you or I or the players because we love hockey. Why don't you pay $500 a seat instead, that way the player makes his money, the owner the profit and you can watch your game. You don't want to do that right? But you expect the owner to subsidize your entertainment, the player, and lose money.

Makes zero sense to me. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I have bought, run. and sold numerous businesses in my life. If you want to at least maintain your wealth you need to break even, if you want to increase it you need to make money. If you're in an industry that causes you to lose money year after year, after a certain amount of time, you will just exit, and there isn't often buyers for businesses in industries that are constantly losing money.

Again profits not revenues, profits matter.


I think the point King of the ES was trying to make was the owners are the ones who set the salary standards for the players. Yes, Gillis had to pay the amount he paid to retain the Sedins, Burrows and Kesler, but that standard was set by other GMs/Owners in previous contracts. The owners and GMs are responsible for inflating the market by handing out contracts that inflated the market.
  • 0

#146 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:41 AM

Simple Math

Clearly if you are losing money and your revenues are increasing your expenses are rising faster than your revenue growth...Not sure what part of that you don't want to accept.


I would think that as a former Wall Street guy you'd be aware that as private companies the NHL teams aren't required to disclose their audited financials. Heck, Aquilini could come out tomorrow and pronounce that he's losing $100M per year, and nobody could really debate him with any sort of certainty.

Moral: don't automatically believe what these owners are saying.

Yes GM's don't have to sign players to certain amounts, but if the Sedin's didn't take the home town discount, Burrows, (Edler likely going to have to) etc, then would we have kept them? No, so the logical outcome is that you have a league of haves and have nots.


Why would you have a league of haves and have-nots based on that? Sedin's would find employment somewhere else and Vancouver would invest those dollars elsewhere. Vancouver choosing not to sign them would've been an organizational decision. Not unlike their decision to not match Salo's offer from Tampa.

Can't argue the decisions of Bettman in his placement of some teams, but its easy to argue in hindsight, he was trying to grow the game in big cities that support major league franchises and have the population/money to maintain them. Mr. Bettman has also lead the league to that same incredible revenue growth you suggest and a huge contract from NBC. So you can't argue both sides of the same coin...again easy to cherry pick to support arguments.


Bettman's also led the sports world in work stoppages. More games lost than the MLB, NBA, and NFL combined. He is almost universally hated, and really not a good face for the NHL, which I hope you'd acknowledge.

Clearly losing teams are not propped up as this is one of the issues the NHLPA has mentioned they are trying to address in their counter proposal, fact checking sir.


The PA has said that they're fine doing that. Not an issue. If these teams are in different markets, other than ones hand-selected by Gary, this discussion probably wouldn't even need to take place.

If you haven't noticed the parity in the league over the last 10 yrs has improved significantly well, not sure what you're watching. Just like the NFL this is what keeps fans engaged in the long term, that year to year, even if you have an off season, you might win the cup the next, thats how a league survives. When you have end up having dynasties, have and have nots, expensive tickets, economic challenges in north america, alternatives for your entertainment dollars, and your team is losing well eventually the team disappears (grizzlies anyone? raptors soon enough?).


Not sure what you're trying to say here. Parity is confirmation that the system is working. A salary split tied to revenues makes logical sense.

Before talking potential "dynasties", how about one first exists?

My final word on this. Owners will not support a league that makes them lose money. Its a stupid decision. They are not here to provide charity to you or I or the players because we love hockey. Why don't you pay $500 a seat instead, that way the player makes his money, the owner the profit and you can watch your game. You don't want to do that right? But you expect the owner to subsidize your entertainment, the player, and lose money.


The owner made the decision to buy the team, and to be the big man in the city that owns the NHL team. They're also free to find a buyer elsewhere, if they want. NHL ownership isn't a lifetime contract. If he's losing money, I have no sympathy for him. Fix it.

Makes zero sense to me. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I have bought, run. and sold numerous businesses in my life. If you want to at least maintain your wealth you need to break even, if you want to increase it you need to make money. If you're in an industry that causes you to lose money year after year, after a certain amount of time, you will just exit, and there isn't often buyers for businesses in industries that are constantly losing money.

Again profits not revenues, profits matter.


Oh, is that how it works? :rolleyes:
  • 0

#147 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:49 AM

I would think that as a former Wall Street guy you'd be aware that as private companies the NHL teams aren't required to disclose their audited financials. Heck, Aquilini could come out tomorrow and pronounce that he's losing $100M per year, and nobody could really debate him with any sort of certainty.

Moral: don't automatically believe what these owners are saying.



Why would you have a league of haves and have-nots based on that? Sedin's would find employment somewhere else and Vancouver would invest those dollars elsewhere. Vancouver choosing not to sign them would've been an organizational decision. Not unlike their decision to not match Salo's offer from Tampa.



Bettman's also led the sports world in work stoppages. More games lost than the MLB, NBA, and NFL combined. He is almost universally hated, and really not a good face for the NHL, which I hope you'd acknowledge.



The PA has said that they're fine doing that. Not an issue. If these teams are in different markets, other than ones hand-selected by Gary, this discussion probably wouldn't even need to take place.



Not sure what you're trying to say here. Parity is confirmation that the system is working. A salary split tied to revenues makes logical sense.

Before talking potential "dynasties", how about one first exists?



The owner made the decision to buy the team, and to be the big man in the city that owns the NHL team. They're also free to find a buyer elsewhere, if they want. NHL ownership isn't a lifetime contract. If he's losing money, I have no sympathy for him. Fix it.



Oh, is that how it works? :rolleyes:


They disclose the info to the players association. Not to you or I idiot. I never said the NHL provides audited statements to the public, if you can find that quote from me I'd be happy to see it moron. Stop trying to 'act' intelligent. You can't argue real points so you make some up? lol

Haves vs. Have nots, yes some players clearly choose to sign for significantly lower around the league. The Sedins are a rarity which is my point. Yes we could invest it somewhere else if they didn't take less, in players who aren't as good but you have to pay the same 5 mil to right? I am not sure why you don't understand this, well actually yes I do....but that's another issue. Its amazing how little you actually comprehend issues.

You clearly don't read full arguments. Ok sell a business that is constantly losing a money in an industry that limits your chances of ever making money, again you don't read. I've sold businesses, its a pretty hard sell. Almost impossible.

Yes, every owner is here to serve your needs as a hockey fan, they should lose money for you.

You are not willing to look at reality and yes every owner is lying, they all just are greedy, want to screw the players, charge you alot, and they are minting money.

You have clearly never been out of canada to see a hockey game. If you did you would realize simply, that if the Canucks who charge a relatively higher priced ticket are eaking out a small profit, well teams in the US who can't charge as much and don't see sell outs for 10 yrs straight clearly can't be making money, simple logic, but ya the owners are liars. Of course, funny how even the NHLPA acknowledges that there are teams in trouble but you seem to have some insight no one else has

As for parity, if salaries continue to escalate, cleary teams will turn into haves and have nots. AGAIN THIS IS THE POINT, I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS BUT YOU CLEARLY NEED TO TAKE A COURSE IN READING COMPREHENSION, THIS IS THE ISSUE THEY ARE TRYING TO PREVENT.

Lol...sit down, you're blind.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 22 September 2012 - 09:56 AM.

  • 0

#148 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:53 AM

Not feel bad for me, I can afford it, you're not getting the point. These guys on average are much much much richer than they were post last lockout. They are all making a fine living, and most regular nhl'ers are millionaires. Crying poor...doesn't work so well.


It's all relative. You have a sense of entitlement too, because you are living in a first world country, and constantly have food to feed your family, and yet, you have the audacity to complain about not receiving one of your many luxuries in life....
  • 0

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#149 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:18 AM

Haves vs. Have nots, yes some players clearly choose to sign for significantly lower around the league. The Sedins are a rarity which is my point. Yes we could invest it somewhere else if they didn't take less, in players who aren't as good but you have to pay the same 5 mil to right? I am not sure why you don't understand this, well actually yes I do....but that's another issue. Its amazing how little you actually comprehend issues.


Again, you don't have to. All that you have to do is reach the floor.

You clearly don't read full arguments. Ok sell a business that is constantly losing a money in an industry that limits your chances of ever making money, again you don't read. I've sold businesses, its a pretty hard sell. Almost impossible.


Awww, it's "hard", is it? It's also "hard" to find a place to invest where the potential reward is so huge; which, therefore, justifies the risk. And that's a risk that they willingly assumed when they bought the business.

Look at Mike Heisley. He bought the Vancouver Grizzlies, a franchise that was bleeding money and that nobody wanted to play for, for $160M in 2001. Fast forward 11 years later, and it's now being sold for $350M.

That's an annually compounded rate of return of 7.38%, in a time where there was the worst recession in modern history. Where else are the owners going to find potential rewards like that? The restaurant business? Not bloody likely. $190M capital gain in 11 years?

You have clearly never been out of canada to see a hockey game. If you did you would realize simply, that if the Canucks who charge a relatively higher priced ticket are eaking out a small profit, well teams in the US who can't charge as much and don't see sell outs for 10 yrs straight clearly can't be making money, simple logic, but ya the owners are liars. Of course, funny how even the NHLPA acknowledges that there are teams in trouble but you seem to have some insight no one else has


:lol:

I live in Chicago, pal. And I lived in Detroit from 2009-11. Yes, I'm well-aware that hockey is not relevant here, and I'm well-aware that ticket prices are lower in the US. But the one thing that you're not considering is that that's not the players' responsibility! The players play the games, which people pay to see. It's not the role of the players to discuss advertising campaigns, fiscal policies, or anything else with the clubs (though they do frequently and willingly promote the teams through various means).

The PA's job is to play hockey. The owners' job is to earn a return off of them. It's that simple.

As for parity, if salaries continue to escalate, cleary teams will turn into haves and have nots. AGAIN THIS IS THE POINT, I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS BUT YOU CLEARLY NEED TO TAKE A COURSE IN READING COMPREHENSION, THIS IS THE ISSUE THEY ARE TRYING TO PREVENT.


Salaries are escalating only because revenues are escalating. WHERE IS THIS UNREASONABLE? If revenues drop, salaries drop.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?
  • 0

#150 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:34 AM

Again, you don't have to. All that you have to do is reach the floor.



Awww, it's "hard", is it? It's also "hard" to find a place to invest where the potential reward is so huge; which, therefore, justifies the risk. And that's a risk that they willingly assumed when they bought the business.

Look at Mike Heisley. He bought the Vancouver Grizzlies, a franchise that was bleeding money and that nobody wanted to play for, for $160M in 2001. Fast forward 11 years later, and it's now being sold for $350M.

That's an annually compounded rate of return of 7.38%, in a time where there was the worst recession in modern history. Where else are the owners going to find potential rewards like that? The restaurant business? Not bloody likely. $190M capital gain in 11 years?



:lol:

I live in Chicago, pal. And I lived in Detroit from 2009-11. Yes, I'm well-aware that hockey is not relevant here, and I'm well-aware that ticket prices are lower in the US. But the one thing that you're not considering is that that's not the players' responsibility! The players play the games, which people pay to see. It's not the role of the players to discuss advertising campaigns, fiscal policies, or anything else with the clubs (though they do frequently and willingly promote the teams through various means).

The PA's job is to play hockey. The owners' job is to earn a return off of them. It's that simple.



Salaries are escalating only because revenues are escalating. WHERE IS THIS UNREASONABLE? If revenues drop, salaries drop.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?


are you retarded? really? Salaries are escalating at the high end because of a few stupid owners. So what happens? Teams have to spend to the cap just to field a 1/2 decent team, there is no give right? its a comparable system. If the guys at the top are making 7-8 million it trickles down. So to fill out an entire roster in order to be COMPETITVE you are effectively handcuffed into spending to the cap.

Wow, so a guy moved a team from a crap market to a good one in a league that has much more popularity than the NHL. lol...good comp man...you certainly don't get anything about business valuation. Moreover, you just PROVED MY POINT. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GRIZZLIES, THEY MOVED!!!! DO YOU THINK THERE ARE ENDLESS CITIES LOOKING FOR NHL TEAMS! LMAO . Do you think endlessly moving teams is a good business strategy? lol...omfg.

wow...just wow...go back to school kid. your arguments are a ball of spaghetti, all over the place, one minute you're arguing a point that has no relevance (bball team), next you are proving my points. lol

i just realized its hard to have an intelligent debate with someone without intelligence.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 22 September 2012 - 11:41 AM.

  • 0




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.