CanucksSayEh Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Being generous with your money is very different from being passive when being dealt a smaller piece of the pie. Just because Aquilini is willing to spend money on the team and community, doesn't mean he is on board with taking less. It takes away from his freedoms of what do to with the extra $$ whether it be used to benefit him and his or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Where do you come up with this nonsense....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li'l Fra Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Wow...do you people think that Aquilini "owes" us his huge investment in the Canucks? I for one am stoked to have strong, local owners who are fans of the team. Who cares if he's a Liberal. So was most of the province was until Gordon blew up the party. The Conservatives? The NDP? There's the Green party? It's all a joke...please don't bring politics into my Hockey. Please! It wasn't so long ago that Vancouver was in danger of losing their team. It's a business, owners risk their money, they deserve to be compensated. There should be no doubt that this ownership group has invested more in this franchise than any that came before. Aquilini stands to lose millions if there is an extended lockout. I, for one, don't believe he's on Bettman's side on this one. He already shares profits with losing southern teams. You think he's happy about that? Or is this just a "hey let's hate the rich guy" thing. The players and owners in favour of this lockout can all s#ck it as far as I'm concerned. But only because they're acting like spoiled children, taking their puck and going home. What side do you think Aquilini is on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max-a-Million Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 1. It's been reported that the owners are 100% behind Bettman and support his tactics unnanimously, so that includes Acquilini 2. The owners are business men and they have hired Bettman, a lawyer to advise and lead them. At the threat of a $1,000,000 fine they will not say anything against him. 3. It's pretty obvious with the crazy contracts that were handed out in late August and up to September 15th by the owners that they are silently in disagreement. 4. This is a classic case of union versus employer and it baffles me that millionaires need a union to represent them. 5. Hockey is entertainment, not an essential service and while I am a hockey fan, I hope they stay locked out for a couple of years. Then we'll see how much money everyone is making while buildings sit empty and assets depreciate in value. Can you imagine if the WWE (another form of entertainment akin to hockey) were to go on strike? SO WHAT. 6. The people hurt the most are the blue collar workers and they'll find other jobs. The sports and radio announcers will find something else to blabber about and life will go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Wow...do you people think that Aquilini "owes" us his huge investment in the Canucks? I for one am stoked to have strong, local owners who are fans of the team. Who cares if he's a Liberal. So was most of the province was until Gordon blew up the party. The Conservatives? The NDP? There's the Green party? It's all a joke...please don't bring politics into my Hockey. Please! It wasn't so long ago that Vancouver was in danger of losing their team. It's a business, owners risk their money, they deserve to be compensated. There should be no doubt that this ownership group has invested more in this franchise than any that came before. Aquilini stands to lose millions if there is an extended lockout. I, for one, don't believe he's on Bettman's side on this one. He already shares profits with losing southern teams. You think he's happy about that? Or is this just a "hey let's hate the rich guy" thing. The players and owners in favour of this lockout can all s#ck it as far as I'm concerned. But only because they're acting like spoiled children, taking their puck and going home. What side do you think Aquilini is on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Hockey Place Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Interesting read here. Perspective from the management (owner's) side. The interview for which the Red Wings are being fined for. One-on-One With Jim Devellano, Detroit Red Wings Senior VP Devellano was candid and thorough in his discussion and answers below and we trust it will provide our readers with some inside perspective on the NHL lockout and issues behind it. http://islandsportsnews.net/component/content/article/1-hockey/3443-one-on-one-with-jim-devellano-detroit-red-wings-senior-vp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnabyJoe Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I have a relative who meets with Aquilini and other sports owners somewhat frequently. He really had nothing good to say about Aquilini, and every other owner he's had business with. I came away realizing what a business pro sports really is. He told me emphatically that they don't care about the players or the game. It's all money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc44 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Actually, it was the NHL and Bettman who proposed the lockout, the owners just voted on it. Not trying to defend Aquilini in any regards, I think he's a money hungry pr*ck, but justifying Bettman by blaming the owners is incorrect. EDIT: Because if the owners say no to a lockout, and the NHL locks them out anyways, then they're dealing with pissed off owners and pissed off players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc44 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I have a relative who meets with Aquilini and other sports owners somewhat frequently. He really had nothing good to say about Aquilini, and every other owner he's had business with. I came away realizing what a business pro sports really is. He told me emphatically that they don't care about the players or the game. It's all money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Interesting read here. Perspective from the management (owner's) side. The interview for which the Red Wings are being fined for. One-on-One With Jim Devellano, Detroit Red Wings Senior VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyHockey Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 First of all, the ownership group acts as a collective. They vote on matters and the majority rules. We have no way of knowing whether or not Aquilini voted for or against the lockout. Given that Vancouver has one of the highest annual revenues, combined with a history of Aquilini dishing out money hand and foot to create a winning environment, it's not far fetched to infer that he may actually have voted against a lockout, ie: the lockout will cost him substantial revenue that he would earn if the hockey season went forward. Secondly, Gary Bettman is the commisioner of the NHL. He is the figurehead of the entire league. The success of the NHL is (or at least should be) his primary objective. To me, that indicates that his interests would be with both owners and players, as both groups are instrumental in the future success of professional hockey. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though Gary Bettman should not be picking sides. He should be a non-partisan individual, an adjudicator over negotiations if he has any involvement at all. Gary Bettman should not be siding with the ownership group if in fact his interests are the future success and growth of the league, as he is ostracizing the players that make this league possible. The ownership group should be handling negotiations without the participation or interference of the NHL brass. That's how I see, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiffyjc12 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 we have no idea how many owners are for or against anything. Bettman can say everything is unanimous but there is no way of knowing for sure. team owners and personel are under gag orders. these have a substantial fine of $1million. I personally think Bettman has just enough of them in his greasy little hands to maintain his position. We cant believe that all of the owners are behind him and the lockout. The same goes for the players we cant belive there isnt a portion of them who would just sign any deal and get back on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I find it interesting how on the eve of the lock-out deadline, Donald Fehr was surrounded by an army of players, while it was just Gary Bettman by himself on TV, acting as the face of ownership. But let's not fool ourselves. Gary Bettman is just the figure head for owners. They pay him big bucks to say what they don't want to say to the public. He is boo'd by every single team's fans in the NHL, yet his job security is bullet proof because the owners love him. He is truly their puppet. When Gary Bettman was standing alone, announcing the NHL has locked out its players, he might as well have been holding hands with our own Francesco Aquilini. Our owner is one of 30 who is offering the players a raw deal. Aquilini is more at fault for this lockout than Bettman because Bettman is just following the demands of owners. Canucks fans tend to talk so favourably about Aquilini, because he has opened the purse strings and allowed this organization to compete at the cap limit for several years. He has invested in unique strategies and created a healthy, winning environment for players and fans. But he is still an owner, and an influential power in an unnecessary lock-out. So, as a reminder, don't hate Bettman, even though he is so easy to hate. He's just the messenger. It's time we recognized who the real culprits are, and keep them accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Good overview and thought outside the box. Bettman should not be representing the owners in any way. His mandate is to look after the league which includes both players, owners and all those employed by the league. Unfortunately for the NHL they have no idea what his real mandate is and yes, he is acting wrongfully as a puppet for the owners. I can't really understand why a persons political preference should result in him being called a "ba***rd". Having said that I suppose a staunch Christie Clark supporter and a hater of of the NDP might belive the same thing about someone who donates to the NDP cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 NHL Constitution, Article VI, section 6.1: ”6.1 Office of Commissioner, Election and Term of Office The League shall employ a Commissioner selected by the Board of Governors. The Commissioner shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the League and is charged with protecting the integrity of the game of professional hockey and preserving public confidence in the League. The Board of Governors shall determine the term of office and compensation of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall be elected a majority of the Governors present and voting at a League meeting at which a quorum was present when it was convened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I'll tell you the way I see it. The owners put in a huge investment purchasing a franchise and an arena. Owners should get a return on that investment. The players currently get 57% of league revenue. That gives the owners 43% and they still have to pay all their expenses (admin, coaches, scouting, support staff, medical, travel, etc) and taxes out of that. I'd say the players are getting too big a piece of that pie. The flip side is that it's the owners with money that wanted the league expanded into non-traditional markets to enhance the possibility of national US TV contracts. Those owners need to enhance the revenue sharing with those small market teams so they can build a fan base. Ultimately the players should indeed take a rollback AND revenue sharing is where that savings should go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The owners calculate an appreciation of franchise net worth as a major return and that is a large reason they initially invest. Players do not receive a dime from any sale of assets. Bettman received a mandate to expand the NHL and the PROMISED /EXPECTED tv revenues that would provide a larger base of appreciating cost base to cover salaries,etc.. That has never occurred as per Bettman's initial mandate. The imaginary Owner/Bettman Pie is now the Owner/Bettman nightmare of depreciating revenues/franchise assets in southern US states that neither understand or demand hockey as northern climates do. Among the four major sports teams in North America, hockey is by far the worst at capitalizing on the television rights to their games. During the 2010-11 season the typical NHL team only generated 18% of its revenue from television. Last year the average team in the NFL, which has the richest television deals (divided equally among all teams), earned 54% of its revenue from TV. The comparable figures in the NBA and MLB are 38% and 32%, respectively. But Bettman and the majority of team owners have been leaving money on the table – millions that could cover the rising player costs that are a major point of contention in the CBA negotiations. That’s their fault, not the fans. http://www.forbes.co...not-the-fans/2/ The issue being debated is HRR and not some 57/43% imaginary number.That is completely erroneous and irrelevant. A balanced explanation is found here: http://m.theglobeand...?service=mobile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 So your saying theres 3 partys involved ? The NHL ,The owners and the players ? The NHL is the owners and Bettman has more power then just being a puppet ,He has a proven track record with the owners with getting them deals in there favor leaving me to believe the reins have been loosen up over the years to let him free lance on there behalf . Im not saying he has full control but i bet every decision does not half to be approved by the owners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 You do realize that TV revenue is determined by TV ratings. The more popular the show the more networks can collect in advertising revenue and thus the more money they are willing to pay to carry that show. Hockey doesn't have the national audience the big three do in the US. A large part of that was the fact that hockey was basically a northeastern sport for so long. It's tough to sell a national network on a sport that isn't national. Hence expanding into non-traditional markets to make it a national sport. The problem is that it takes decades to attract an audience to a relatively unknown sport in a new area. It's made even tougher for those teams to attract a fan base if they can't even afford to compete in the league. It's really tough to sell a loser to a new audience. Hell, it was tough to sell a loser here in Vancouver after being here for decades. Remember the talk about relocating the Canucks before the WCE made the team popular again? Yes, there are teams making money hand over fist. Which is why there should be an increase in revenue sharing. But is it entirely fair for all that money to come out of the owners pocket to create or save jobs for the employees? You could just fold six teams and thus eliminate 150 NHL players from the league. Or there can be a trade off. The owners increase revenue sharing to help those teams compete to increase their fan base and the employees take a small pay cut. As an owner I wouldn't be inclined to take more money out of my pocket to save the job of an employee that isn't even mine. Which is what the employees are offering. I might be inclined to help if my employees were willing to help out as well. Which is why it should go both ways. Owners contribute more in revenue sharing while the employees take a little less of the pie. It really is the fair solution. They are all still going to be millionaires in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I think the ball is in the owner's court. They can just sit back and wait for the players to sign. If I am not mistaken a majority of team owners also own the arena, so they are still getting arena revenue from rentals, parking etc. How would it work with scab players? What constitutes a player being in the NHLPA? Could a team ice it's prospects who are not in the NHL and sign players out of europe, college and minor leagues? If the team stole some of the best talent out of europe, the AHL, and NCAA the league could still be the strongest in the world. Edit: Google is my friend http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/17/replacement-players-could-solve-nhl-owners-problems-end-lockout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.