Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Anyone else losing interest?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
97 replies to this topic

#91 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:55 AM

the league is dysfunctional and needs to be blown up.
start fresh with only the canadian teams and the original six.
Posted Image

#92 CanuckianOne

CanuckianOne

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,661 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 05:56 PM

I wouldn't say I've lost interest. Although I'm starting to give up hope that we'll have a 2012/2013 season

Edited by Misa Campo, 29 October 2012 - 05:56 PM.

Zf3XIDB.png

Sig by: Samuel Påhlsson


#93 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:26 PM

The way for fans to end the lockout is not to scream for a deal, not to get on FB and twitter and start busting out hashtags.

If we wanna influence a deal, we need to just stop caring. Stop talking about this stupid lockout, stop posting about in social network. If people stop caring, TV and radio will stop talking about it so much, and the NHL will really start feeling the pressure if they think the NHL is losing momentum.
Posted Image

#94 starfish6000

starfish6000

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 12

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:03 PM

Well there just is not much to be interested in right now. The negations are at a stalmate, the players who are going to Europe or the AHL have pretty much already gone.

So all that is left is to just wait it out. Hard to be excited about waiting.

#95 canacks1970

canacks1970

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 06

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:28 PM

No change. I'm not a big October hockey fan anyways. NHL doesn't get good until players start clicking on all cylinders which imo doesn't happen until mid November.

I'm loving the MLB playoffs, the NFL and UEFA Champions League right now.

I don't mind waiting until a right deal is signed which insures the financial health of the NHL for years to come. I'm tired of reading about NHL teams losing money and possible moves out of their respective cities.

I'll take short term lockout (even a year) for long term stability.




Do you even remember the last lockout WHL rock? Those statements you made were almost what Bettmen said the last time. Guarantee when the next Cba runs out you'll be hearing the same thing over and over again from Gary with the same problems.

#96 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:38 PM

Do you even remember the last lockout WHL rock? Those statements you made were almost what Bettmen said the last time. Guarantee when the next Cba runs out you'll be hearing the same thing over and over again from Gary with the same problems.


Of course I remember it. Obviously it didn't fix the problem. What are you suggesting? If unsuccessful at fixing a problem never make another attempt?


The NHL's Problem: Only Three Teams Are Making Real Money


The NHL locked out its players Saturday night at midnight when its collective bargaining agreement expired. It is the league’s fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Like every stoppage, this one is about money and how to divvy up what is now a $3.3 billion pie.
If you are looking for comparisons among sports leagues, think NBA and not NFL, which both had lockouts over the past 14 months. The NFL lockout had only a single preseason game cancelled, while NBA owners lost 20% of their regular season and had to pack in the remaining 80% of games in five months. The NHL is scheduled to begin its regular season October 11 and that date is in serious jeopardy.

The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million.
The concentration of wealth at the top is similar in the NBA. The three most profitable teams during the 2010-11 season, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers (a 1-year anomaly where the team sold out its arena with a cut-rate payroll ahead of LeBron James skipping town), earned $167 million. The total represented 96% of the league’s estimated profits of $175 million. The NBA tripled revenue sharing in its new CBA to help prop up small market teams.
Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFL’s richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFL’s $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high.
Baseball is the most equitable major U.S. sports league when it comes to sharing the wealth. No wonder it will have had 21 years of labor peace by the time its current CBA expires in 2016. The top three earners last season, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals and Chicago Cubs, made $87 million, which is only 20% of MLB’s $432 million in operating profit. High-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are content to run baseball operations with small profits, while making a killing through their ownership stakes in the regional sports networks that broadcast their games.
MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.
The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?
http://www.forbes.co...esnt-have-them/

Edited by WHL rocks, 29 October 2012 - 10:45 PM.


#97 canacks1970

canacks1970

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 06

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

Ok the last lockout I was supporting the Owners but not this time. You own a business and you have a guy running a company that had three lockouts and complaing about the same problems over and over again! What would you do? Somethings wrong here! . Why not get rid of teams that are not in the hockey market in the first place. Like Carolina which shouldn't have left Hartford in the first place. How about teams in Florida? Why don't they put teams in a hockey mad city like Quebec City or Hamilton? Why is Bettmen wanting a team staying put in PHX that is losing money? Was it really nessasary that you had to expand from 21 teams to 30. Places that shouldn't have teams in the first place. The league was bad enough having 23-24 teams with a water down league. Why bother having a last lockout when Bettmen even stated that having a SALARY CAP was going to help this league in the long run and here were are with the same problem WHL rock. You mention that you don't mind having a lockout for a year for the long term stabiliity? Didn't we lose a year in the last lockout and were did it get them? Another lockout. Imo what this tells me is that Gary and is cronies never thought this through about the long term. So Basically there is no Guarentee when the next cba expires that we won't have the same problems as long as you have Bettmen and his cronies running the business. Do we really know for sure how many teams are actually losing money? Gary Bettmen is representing the Owners then fine. Then tell me why are these Owners that are crying the blues about how poor they are that before September 15th rolled around we had these Owners scrambling around getting their players sign to long term contracts longer then 5 years more then Gary had stipulated for the next CBA .If you were Bettmen why didn't put a stop to it. So who is running the show Bettmen or the Owners? Why is it that he only needs 8 owners to have a lockout and not a majority? As far as we know we could have the majority of the owners that don't want a lockout. But we don't know that now do we since Gary has a gag order on all the Owners.
WHL rock I respect what your saying. But I look at it another way, Three lockouts in 20 years is more then enough. Time to look for a new commisioner that understands and loves the game. Not some smug Lawyer who has never played the game before in his life who came from the NBA.

Edited by canacks1970, 30 October 2012 - 02:10 PM.


#98 Masamune

Masamune

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Joined: 05-June 12

Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:45 PM

I no longer care about the lockout. Straight up, I have accepted that there will not be hockey until there is, and there just isn't right now. I don't mind, because I have other interests. If being a fan means that the lack of make-believe gladiators running around wearing blue and green puts you in a state of perpetual frustration, I don't want to be a fan. I'm a spectator with special allegiance to the Canucks.

Flame on.




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.