Boudrias Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I also agree with Bookie, even though I don't entirely agree, I appreciate that you actually participate and have logical response, unlike some other people on these boards. *Cough* (King of ES) *cough* But the thing is the people in Phoenix don't care, and do you think other people from other cities want to watch Coyotes games desperately? Not likely. And it wouldn't make a difference to fans of other teams if they are playing the coyotes or a team in Quebec. Plus does it really make a difference to NBC if one unsuccessful team is moved? Again it's not like they are a major NHL market for NBC anyways if the majority of the fans dont care, where as if the league moved they would be making loads of money in a city that wants a team like Quebec or Seattle. And Seattle is a pretty big US market, and given that the fans there would actually love and embrace hockey unlike in Phoenix, it would be a much better spot for NBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickhead Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 tired of waiting , i think it's time to renovate the house and forget hockey for a while . Im finding the lack of movment or flexability to get a deal done agrivating . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I'm not pro owner. I'm pro me. In my view if owners get a good deal NHL will be a healthy league in the future. If owners make more money I will benefit by being able to enjoy a stable league with some teams in nontraditional but large American markets. Most importantly as a Canadian i'll be able to enjoy teams in Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa and hopeful Hamilton and Quebec in the future. I want to see a profitable league. I'd like to see Coyotes stay in PHX while teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton become contenders. As it is the Jets will be very hard pressed to compete in payroll. I am also old enough to remember when the CAD was worth .65 cents and Canucks were one of the Canadian teams on the NHL's welfare program. This was not a long time ago, only a few years. Edit. And Of course I think most players are uneducated jocks who barely have high school education. Completely no clue even about the simple and basic parts of CBA. I think 50-50 Should be enough for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li'l Fra Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Good gawd! A two week break? I just read the Larionov piece in the Sun and it hit home...again. Did these players have to defect or struggle in an abnormal way for there "hard-earned" money? Nope, sorry...how many millions per year do you need? I just read Derek Sanderson's book and it hit home...again. You think you deserve to make 100 times what Bobby Orr was making? Forget it. As for the owners: Back in the day if you didn't run your team like a business, there was no one to cry to. You went OUT of business! Sorry, Bettman, it's your job to find a solution to your mess, not continue to flush properly managed teams' money down the toilet! The money owners and players are making now is ridiculous; completely out of whack with reality. That's why most of us are so frustrated. What are these idiots fighting about? Share the pie. Or...Seriously...F....OFF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If they wanted to keep a team in Phoenix, they shouldn't have built their arena 30+ minutes away from their fans. Few Phoenix fans are die-hard enough to make the drive. Right now, a few thousand fans from Phoenix get to enjoy the team, while Glendale tax-payers have to carry the burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Is Flyers' Snider helping thaw NHL talks? Frank Seravalli, Daily News Staff Writer POSTED: Saturday, November 17, 2012, 12:58 AM On the surface, prospects for an end to the NHL's 2-month lockout took a nosedive this week, when commissioner Gary Bettman proposed a 2-week moratorium in talks after bargaining reached yet another standstill. Behind the scenes, there seems to be a seismic shift going on among the NHL's Board of Governors, also known as the group that Bettman answers to collectively. And Flyers chairman Ed Snider may be the big mover-and-shaker behind it all. Multiple sources confirmed to the Daily News on Friday that Snider, once seen as a supporter of the Bettman's push to rein in the players' share of revenue, has soured on the process after it became apparent that a deal would not be brokered in time for a Dec. 1 puck drop. Put simply: Snider and the rest of the NHL's owners were promised a big win by Bettman, with player concessions on revenue division and contracting rights. The best they'll get now is a small win in revenue split - coupled with a demoralized fan base and all-important corporate sponsors that are ready to quit. A source familiar with Snider's thinking characterized it as: "If this is the deal we are going to get, what's the point of dragging this out?" Neither Snider nor team president Peter Luukko has publicly addressed the lockout since it began on Sept. 16, for fear of a $1 million fine from Bettman. Snider, 79, is the NHL's longest-serving governor and serves on the board's executive committee, which helps steer policy. A backroom wheeler-dealer, Snider can make his moves in a practical way via the board's numbers. When it comes to labor negotiations, league rules require a a vote of 75 percent of governors to oppose the commissioner's recommendation. That means Bettman has absolute power, so long as he has eight out of 30 owners to block any hostile movement against him. Bettman actually needs only seven owners to support him, since the league owns the Phoenix franchise There have been many educated guesses over the last few weeks as to which franchises are a part of this "hardline" bargaining group of Bettman's staunchest allies, but my list first included Boston, Minnesota, Calgary, Washington, Dallas, Philadelphia and Anaheim, in addition to Phoenix. Others did not have the Flyers originally among that hardliners list. But the Flyers' original thinking, at least in terms of what this reporterhad learned, was that they were pro-lockout on Bettman's conditions. They trusted him. They made huge money after the 2004-05 lockout, when their payroll dropped from $71 million in 2003-04 to the capped $39 million number in 2005-06. They also participated in two Winter Classics, hosting one at Citizens Bank Park, and a Stanley Cup final without reaching their previous payroll level in seven straight seasons. Bettman and Snider have worked well together over the years - and Bettman is well aware of Snider's power, sensing a need to keep the Flyers' owner in his pocket in times like these. For Bettman, the Flyers are a linchpin. To be sure, Snider and Co. were not against the lockout. Some in the media pegged the Flyers during this process as "middlers," or those that wanted to play but were interested in results. That all has changed. On Friday, multiple sources indicated Snider's "strong discontent" for Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, a big-market owner who has been one of the lockout's ringleaders. Despite their on-ice rivalry, there seems to be some thinking that the Flyers are interested in teaming up with the midmarket but high-revenue Pittsburgh Penguins to sway more governors toward a swift resolution. The Rangers are also viewed as anti-lockout. At the very least, if the Flyers are changing their view, two important questions arise: Which other teams have shifted? Where is this whole thing heading? While some of the smaller-market teams have been interested in a greater percentage of "hockey related revenue" to help get back in the black, there is a growing sentiment that any lingering effects from this lockout could wipe out a franchise in Columbus, Florida, Nashville or Tampa Bay entirely. According to a source, the Flyers' top-level executives presented their own proposal for the collective-bargaining agreement nearly 3 weeks ago. It remains unclear whether their proposal was the engine behind the league's progress last week, when they strung together lengthy bargaining sessions in 7 out of 9 days. The Flyers have also proposed the use of a high-profile mediator to help smooth things out. Former President Bill Clinton's name has been kicked around, which does not make a whole lot of sense, though, given Snider's conservative political ties. Neither side has officially asked for the use of a mediator. When Bettman proposed the 2-week moratorium in talks this week, which would cause the players to miss their fourth of 13 paychecks, perhaps he was hoping they would get antsy and ask for a vote to end the lockout. Now, with the way things are going, Bettman is likely just hoping it doesn't result in a vote in his own boardroom. " @DNFlyers Blog: philly.com/FrequentFlyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Help us Ed Snider, you’re our only NHL lockout hope In case you were worried you hadn't seen everything in this preposterous lockout, worry no more: Philadelphia Flyers owner Ed Snider could be the hero that helps end the work-stoppage. Frank Seravalli of the Philadelphia Daily News reported on Saturday that Snider has soured on the lockout as it's dragged on through what he hoped would be a Dec. 1 start to a truncated season. With labor talks at a stalemate and NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman offering a two-week moratorium on talks, that target date is looking mighty bleak. From the News: Put simply: Snider and the rest of the NHL's owners were promised a big win by Bettman, with player concessions on revenue division and contracting rights. The best they'll get now is a small win in revenue split - coupled with a demoralized fan base and all-important corporate sponsors that are ready to quit. The sponsorship issue is becoming more prominent for the NHL the longer the lockout goes. COO John Collins had been tasked with keeping the League's benefactors in line early in the process, and it was a significant task: The number of high-profile sponsors paying large sums to partner with the NHL has dramatically changed since the 2004-05 work stoppage. The stakes are higher now among sponsors, as they are for a League that has an American television deal it didn't have seven years ago. When the CEO of Molson Coors is openly talking about reparations from the NHL after beer sales plummeted in Canada during the lockout, it echoes through ownership. So can Ed Snider be the driving force to end the lockout? From Seravalli, here's what is at stake: While some of the smaller-market teams have been interested in a greater percentage of "hockey related revenue" to help get back in the black, there is a growing sentiment that any lingering effects from this lockout could wipe out a franchise in Columbus, Florida, Nashville or Tampa Bay entirely. According to a source, the Flyers' top-level executives presented their own proposal for the collective-bargaining agreement nearly 3 weeks ago. It remains unclear whether their proposal was the engine behind the league's progress last week, when they strung together lengthy bargaining sessions in 7 out of 9 days. Snider's always been a odd one to pin down in these talks. He's been seen as a Bettman loyalist, but he's also one of the primary violators of the spirit of the previous CBA with some of the Flyers' contracts. He's been viewed as part of the NHL's hawkish owners, but Mark Spector of Sportsnet recently explained why he's a dove: Snider (79), like Ilitch, wants to play, but insiders say he won't buck the large group. As chairman of Comcast Spectacor, this lockout will adversely affect Comcast Sportsnet (which has a handful of regional NHL deals) as well as NBC Sports Network (formerly Versus), which also falls under the Comcast umbrella. NBC Sports Network must still pay the NHL $200 in rights fees this year, but will get an extra year tacked on to the back end of its 10-year contract (it was to start this season) for free. On the ice, the Flyers are well over $100 million in revenues, with relatively little debt servicing. They're a money machine that won't churn until Bettman and Donald Fehr reach an agreement. As Seravalli explained, the Flyers are keen on teaming up with "the midmarket but high-revenue Pittsburgh Penguins" in an attempt to end the lockout, and that makes sense: There are teams that are thriving right now that don't want to spend months on the sidelines watching a CBA war that isn't producing their desired results. What this comes back to is something we've discussed on the Marek Vs. Wyshynski podcast on several occasions: Can Gary Bettman survive this lockout as commissioner? There's already a sense that he'll have to be sacrificed in order to soothe relations with the players, who are now simply calling the man an idiot during media scrums. But if a loyal owner like Snider sees Bettman as having failed at the primary function of his job — maximizing the earnings for the owners and diminishing those for the players — would they opt for someone else after this CBA negotiation is over? Or is Snider always, in the end, going to back Bettman regardless of the lockout's conclusion? Of course, that's getting ahead of ourselves. The CBA negotiation has to end first. Help us Ed Snider … you're our only hope! (Up is down, left is right, hamburgers eat people, dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Ian White calls Bettman an idiot and goes on to say .... It only takes 7 owners to have something pass...it's not democratic. LOL what a moron. In reality It's 8 owners votes to turn down a deal, not 7 votes to have something pass. Great example of an uneducated hockey player, no wonder half these guy couldn't understand the concept of escrow when they started seeing escrow deductions on their paychecks after last lockout. LOL He doesn't even know this simple fact even I know as a fan who's not losing millions due to this lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Haven't you heard? The players have no power what-so-ever.... There is the very real possibility, in my mind at least, that the same ability to threaten the players with a take it or leave it scenario is as likely to unfold among the ownership themselves. Just as the owners could conceivably say to the player that they must take this deal or guaranteed contracts are off the table, there could be a revolt among the wealthy teams to say to the lower revenue teams "Take what we can now or revenue sharing is off the table." If the season ends and the game is adversely affected I can imagine the Leafs, Flyers, Habs, Wings, Canucks, Red Wings, Pens and Rags (8 Teams) will not want to give more money away as they are already losing. See, the 8 team veto is a dangerous prospect going forward both ways. The only way the NHL can go forward with that BOG rule in place is with a virtual consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 That means as long as Bettman has 7 owners with him, he can do whatever he wants and the other owners can't do anything about it. So, technically, that means it currently only takes 7 votes to pass something that Bettman recommends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I believe the 8-team rule only applies to vetoing deals though. To approve one it is 16 (standard majority). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Ian White is an idiot and everyone who has spoken up on the subject has made things worse. Don't they get it? It's a poker game now with Fehr and Bettman. Every time a hockey player talks whether its Latrendress that has spoke about the PA and how they should have accepted the deal two weeks ago, to the White's of the world who says Bettmans an idiot. The more frustrating one side is, the other side is laughing it up. Someones going to give in eventually, and like I've said before, its a very good chance it's the players because the Owners have always called the shots. Bettman telling the NHLPA to take a 2 weeks break is just business and reality in for the players. You don't want a deal? Fine. I'll Cancel another month and the offers, money continue to decrease and get worse. It's until the Players realize that they are arguing over nothing, and they'll have to go back to accepting a deal that was previous offered or to never play hockey again, that the lockout will be over. The Pressures on both of them now, but eventually someones going to crack. Ian White cracking does nothing. Nobody cares about Ian White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Ian White cracking does nothing. Nobody cares about Ian White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Yup. Everyone but player reps should just keep their mouth shut one way or the other. And stop tweeting, morons. I'm looking at you Dan Cleary. (makes me wonder what is going on in convos of Wings players right now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I believe the 8-team rule only applies to vetoing deals though. To approve one it is 16 (standard majority). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 True. BUT, Bettman only needs 8 owners (or 7 right now since Phoenix is owned by the NHL) to side with him to reject any offer he wants regardless of what the other owners think. So, though it may technically take more to pass something, if only a small group can veto anything they want, they get to ultimately control what is passed because they control what is even up for an approval vote to begin with. As Dan Boyle said, that means that a small group of owners can be holding up the entire process regardless of what the others think. And add to that the $1M fine owners can be slapped with for having any public opinion that the NHL didn't approve first and Ian White was correct when he said the NHL's process is not democratic and disproportionately empowers a few owners over and possibly at the expense of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I have spent some time pondering this thing and I have decided that I would like to see not only one lost full season...but three. I have wild visions of significant US market shrinkage and serious franchise contraction, as well as deep drops in player salaries/costs and ticket prices. Bring on the endless lockout! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I'm not sure where you are getting this 16 from. It takes 23 yeses to approve a deal. Am I missing something here? If this does go sideways I can see the NHL needing to use Bettman as a sacrificial lamb to appease the fans for the 2014 season. This may be part of the NHLPAs strategy. Maybe Bettman knows this too and that's why no negotiating can be done with him at the table. He's fighting for his livelihood here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMBUTANS Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 The problem with you all is that you are addicted to the game. After the 2004 lock-out, you rewarded the owners and PA with 3.3 Billion smackeroos. As an appreciation, they slapped you with another work stoppage a few years after. Now' there is outrage. Another season is lost. Everyone says that they will walk away from the game. A few say they will get even. Let me tell you what will happen, after the Replacement players are gone and the regular players are back, you will all go and fill up the arena and buy tons of jerseys. Yes, you will give them another 6 billion in profit. Six years from now, the NHL and PA will lock it out again and decide how to divide the loot, and round and round we go........because you are all addicted to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Yeah sorry, 23 sounds right to me too. Wasn't sure so I did a quick google and came up with 16. My mistake. So just to confirm, Bettman needs: 8 votes to say No 23 votes to say Yes is this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.