Prngr44 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Just to throw more fuel on the fire, the NHL's board of governors pays Bettman almost $8M per year to represent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I remember back when the canadian dollar sucked that Canadian fans felt VERY different about revenue sharing. Just saying. I don't understand how people can, for example, say that weaker teams shoudl be folded, and then complain about the original Jets franchise leaving. It was the smallest market when it left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neufy161 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Just to throw more fuel on the fire, the NHL's board of governors pays Bettman almost $8M per year to represent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I remember back when the canadian dollar sucked that Canadian fans felt VERY different about revenue sharing. Just saying. I don't understand how people can, for example, say that weaker teams shoudl be folded, and then complain about the original Jets franchise leaving. It was the smallest market when it left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 #FireBettman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 The difference was and always will be, is that Winnipeg is a HOCKEY MARKET. Phoenix isn't, hasn't, and never will be one of those. Could you imagine the NHL without the 7 teams? Revenue sharing was a necessity because it wasn't just Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa that needed it, all the Canadian teams did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted August 10, 2012 Author Share Posted August 10, 2012 @JSportsnet Sounds like the NHLPA is in talks to have all-star games for union members in Russia and Canada if they are locked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS DECISION TO BE LOCKED OUT!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. Think of it this way the owners have the keys to the arenas and therefore are the ones who get to fricken lock the doors on the players. Thereby Locking out the players who want to come in and play hockey. The players could all stand up and say lock us out but if the owners don't do it there is no lockout. What is so hard to understand about that? IF THERE IS A LOCKOUT THE MONEY THE PLAYERS WILL EARN COMES FROM THE NHLPA ESCROW HOLDINGS SO IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH A LOCKOUT!!!! If you can't understand this then I see you have zero understanding of the situation and a very limited intellgence to be able to grasp very simple concepts and I wish you luck in your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Wow, I just want to swear all over the place. The fact that Bettman and the owners actually think that changing contracts they agreed to pay is within there rights, is completely obscene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 The owners have said the doors are open if you agree to our proposal. If you (the players) don't agree to our offer or something close to it, we lock you out. Whose decision is it? It's up to the players to decide, the owners have made their offer. The palyers will decide if there is a lock out or not, how hard is this to understand (of course the owners are the ones who will lock the doors but they have set it up so that the players will decide if they have to lock those doors). The escrow is NOT controlled by the NHLPA. The escrow is divided between players and owners at the end of each season when the final revenue numbers are in. The escrow for last year has been dealt with. The union might have a strike or lock-out fund, that I do not know but it has zero to do with the CBA escrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 It is called CBA negotiations because both sides must be willing to comprimise on certain issues. If it is as you say the NHL's stance is basically accept our propsal or lockout that is not negotiation that is called BLACKMAIL and that is on the owners and NHL at that point, not the players who were there to NEGOTIATE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Not that I think you are wrong necessarily, but the league needs to think about logistical things like booking arenas, while the players do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks3322 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 is there anyway Bettman can get fired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 is there anyway Bettman can get fired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks3322 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 even if that happened, everyone would hate the new guy after a year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrrFour Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 "Myth No. 1: That Gary Bettman promised ticket prices would fall when the owners got the deal they wanted back in 2005." I remember people that were on the owners' side in the last labour dispute making the argument that ticket prices would fall with a hard salary cap. I didn't believe it then, and it has certainly not happened. The canucks, for example, are a high revenue team that makes a good profit every year.. It'd be nice if they lowered ticket prices, but they consistently sell out Rogers, so why bother? They've made a huge investment in the team so they have the right to make a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 if there is a lockout the only good thing out of it would be bettman losing his job 3 lockouts since he as been commisoner would have no clue how he stays commisoner after that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I rather have a new guy then Bettman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks.brad Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 eliminate the damn loophole that allows for these dumb 15 year contracts. max it at 5 go on playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 There will be no season this year. I'll eat my jersey if there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.