Vansicle Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 oops. dbl post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Dear NHLPA, Don't listen to fans who don't know the difference between a lockout and a strike, their a$$ or a hole in the ground. Instead, start forming your own league: that will get the owners back to the table in a hurry. You have an incentive to play but it seems the owners don't, so you have to do something to put the situation on a different footing. Challenging their choke-hold on elite hockey in North America would be a game changer. solidarity forever, Manniwaki Canuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 oops. dbl post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Perhaps you'd like to do the math relative to how many years it would take for you to earn a year's worth of MLSE revenue, or a year's worth of Ed Snider's Flyers-related revenue, etc, and get back to us on that one. In the meantime, your post just reads as sentimental and unbalanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Setting aside the fact that you choose to belittle an opinion that differs from your own instead of offering up meaningful converation, I would actually love to see a player run league. It would be a fascinating excersise to see players in the shoes of owners and see how they handle revenue and team losses. With regards to your lockout vs. strike statement, as I have said aleady it is a pointless distinction. Naturally player will continue to play under a system that they want to keep. They would do this indefinately. There is no nobility in that, it is one side simply getting what they want while negotiations are drawn out. I simply think 50/50 is the definition of fair in this case. It is my opinion, and you clearly don't share it. That is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Sentimental and unbalanced? I suppose I am guilty as charged. But it is how I feel. As I pointed out previously, unfortunately for the players the math will never favour them. If a season is missed, it won't matter in the end if they do get their way. A seven percent reduction would have still resulted in far less lost wage than missing a seaon. Either way they will wind up getting less. If the players that will take less to play for fans in other leagues but not to play for you in the NHL don't bother you, then cheers to that. If more players take a stand like that of Bobby Ryan I'll be much more inclined to swing my support their way. I suppose time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 As some have stated, the owners will get what they want in the end. Our family owned a business (in the family for 100+ years). We sold the business a few years ago. At the peak 7 years ago, we had 1800 employees. Once the economy took a turn, decisions had to be made that were in the best interest for the business, which in turn was in the best interest for the employees as well. However, a lot of uneducated employees who do not understand the inner workings of how a business is run do not understand why a business will make the the decisions that it does. Granted, some NHL franchises have not been run very well. Some owners do not have the luxury to own a club in a hotbed. However, just because some owners have not run their franchise well in the past, that doesn't mean that they should not be given the chance to fix it. I love hockey and greatly respect the talent that the players have. That said though, the players have known nothing but playing hockey their entire lives. Majority of them know jack about business and have no clue how bad it is in most markets (see Krys Barch). Changes have to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 By the same logic the owners locking out should equally bother you - once a month or two of games are lost, the same math applies to owners losing more than they could gain in reducing salaries. If you write an accompanying letter pleading the same points... No, it doesn't bother me when a Russian or a Swede decides to go play in the KHL or SEL when they are locked out over here. I'm not impressed by guys like Nash and Thornton going overseas under the circumstances, but for different reasons than 'they are willing to play for less for other fans'. If an owner is willing to lockout, cancel games, and lose more money doing so than they will gain by leveraging the players, doesn't that bother you equally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 As I pointed out previously, unfortunately for the players the math will never favour them. If a season is missed, it won't matter in the end if they do get their way. A seven percent reduction would have still resulted in far less lost wage than missing a seaon. Either way they will wind up getting less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 When you said "Some owners do not have the luxury to own a club in a hotbed" you actually should have said "Some owners knowingly and willingly bought a team in an unknown or weak market." There's a BIG difference there and frankly one that underlines the business angle of your post. Where to start a company is the first major decision any business must make. It's so important it's often repeated thrice as advice. "Location, location, location!" It's not a luxury to put a team in a hockey market, it's smart. And it's not just misfortune to put one in the desert. It's bad business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I now digress and I might take a lot of heat here, but I can't help wonder about some of the markets viewed as weak. Atlanta, Tampa, Florida etc. traditionally iced very weak teams. Yes there was a Cup for Tampa, and Florida had one nice run, but generally speaking most of the "weak markets" put a crappy team on the ice year after year. I'm not saying the markets aren't weak in those places, I'm saying it is difficult to judge them when the teams have performed so poorly. I am on old guy and remember very well the "Messier" years and the subsequent rebuild in Vancouver. Fan support was pretty lean when we were always losing. Yet I don't think anyone would call Vancouver a weak market. Again, not saying there aren't better choices for where to put teams, I just don't think there has been a fair measurement in some places. New Jersey on the other hand, probably the worst market in hockey. Consistent playoff contenders, plenty of Cups, empty buidling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The owners will pay themselves into a hole again, despite any role back. Mike Modano stated that best. They are forfeiting 100% of their salary for an idiotic reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Sorry. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying it's unfair to call certain markets "weak" if they've never had a successful team and that we shouldn't assume those markets can't support a winning franchise? And even if that is your point, what is the point of that? If a market will only support a winning franchise, that alone will ensure most of the league loses money year after year. That seems like a poor business set up from the get go. Plus, if players are what makes a team better and the best players cost more money and are attracted to successful teams, doesn't it just make sense that the teams that make the most money should have the best teams? (Of course, that doesn't explain Toronto. But then, what does?) That's just the way business works and should be considered by the NHL when expanding or relocating teams. I think I must be missing something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 It was more a random thought than anything else. I think over a reasonable amount of time, most markets will only support a winning franchise, Vancouver included. Like you said, TO is an anomaly. Yes that is the way business works, no argument there. I just wonder at some people that think if only Team X was moved to City Y then they would do well financially. That is where I think many people are flawed in their logic and perhaps find the NHL an easy target to cast blame. I'm not speaking to you on that point, just generalizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gady Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 What I say is correct, minus out the costs that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 As some have stated, the owners will get what they want in the end. Our family owned a business (in the family for 100+ years). We sold the business a few years ago. At the peak 7 years ago, we had 1800 employees. Once the economy took a turn, decisions had to be made that were in the best interest for the business, which in turn was in the best interest for the employees as well. However, a lot of uneducated employees who do not understand the inner workings of how a business is run do not understand why a business will make the the decisions that it does. Granted, some NHL franchises have not been run very well. Some owners do not have the luxury to own a club in a hotbed. However, just because some owners have not run their franchise well in the past, that doesn't mean that they should not be given the chance to fix it. I love hockey and greatly respect the talent that the players have. That said though, the players have known nothing but playing hockey their entire lives. Majority of them know jack about business and have no clue how bad it is in most markets (see Krys Barch). Changes have to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Do people pay the large ticket prices to see NHL hockey or do people pay the large prices to watch the best hockey palyers. Does the best team in the world have to win the Stanley Cup or would it be ok if that team won the Red Bull Stratos Cup as league champs? Jim Balsilie, Mark Cuban and others that have an interest in being hockey owners are probably watching very carefully.Wonder if the old World hockey League name is owned by anyone? In any strike (which this is NOT) money is usually lost by the current on strike employees that they don't get back for years and years, if at all. However the future player or employee will have it better because of the strike today. People sometimes look at just the money and not the future or the principle. If this were a strike then I would not like the players going over seas, but as this is a lockout I have no problem with them going to K or Swedish league teams. The players that did go over have a supposedly legally binding contract to play hockey in the NHL for certain teams at specific money.If the league is not open then why not sign a contract overseas for a specific amount of money?Even if it IS less the player still negotiated that amount in good faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Oh, I see. I think I understand your point now. Thank you for clarifying. I see what you're saying, but I do think there's a difference between a good or bad market that goes beyond the success of the team. You're right. People will always support a winning team. Look at LA. But as Conan joked, once the Cup was won people could go back to not caring anymore. And that's the difference between a good market and a bad market. In a good market you'll get at least some level of support even if you suck. (Look at Calgary and Edmonton. Bad teams for years. Good markets.) Other sports have successful teams even when they're perennial losers. Baseball in particular. So, I don't see why hockey should be different. It's just a matter of getting the teams into the right market. I personally think the problem is that the NHL keeps trying to put teams into markets with little or no knowledge of hockey. As far as sports go, it's not the easiest to pick up. There are lots of rules and they are unevenly applied and seem to change somewhat each season. I think generally speaking, people watch the sports they played as a kid or were at least exposed to as a kid. People in Florida have no concept of hockey because they didn't play it as a kid. Baseball they have a basic understanding of from when the played with the other kids in their neighborhood, or even from grade school phys-ed class. Knowledge of a sport is of course not a guarantee of success, but it should be seen as a base requirement for where to set up shop. People will never buy a product they don't have any knowledge of or invested interest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 All good points. I think part of the problem is that with the exception of another team in Ontario or Quebec there are no "slam dunk" markets left to relocate a team to. I'd love to see one in Seattle myself, but there are no guarantees a franchise would work there. I have to think it would be a better fit than New Jersey though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 ...and the players ARE the NHL and without the players the NHL is.........N........O....T.....H...I....N...G.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.