Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Seattle

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

For sure.  I wouldn't want to be the one to try to balance it all out, but ideally there should be more money earned by broadcasters, which should increase league revenue.  But, considering how these contracts are worded (and I have no idea what the contracts are or when they expire), I struggle to see a lot of sharing of the new revenue by the broadcasters.  If player escrow isn't enough to cover the losses, I guess that might lead to a lockout at some point.

 

FWIW, I haven't been paying attention to a lot of discussion on this lately, so apologies if I am repeating the words of others, especially if any real reports have countered any of my guesses.

No I'm not as clear on these conditions either. But am interested in their effect on the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

No I'm not as clear on these conditions either. But am interested in their effect on the game.

Absolutely.  The escrow concept can handle it well, assuming it can address something so drastic as this.  Of course, it would also make the contract values less meaningful... kinda like our printed money when the government prints more.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2020 at 1:56 PM, Kragar said:

Absolutely.  The escrow concept can handle it well, assuming it can address something so drastic as this.  Of course, it would also make the contract values less meaningful... kinda like our printed money when the government prints more.

 

Salaries are based on the revenue sharing concept. That was the reason for the lockout. Players have to bite the bullet on this. The owners and top end players won't suffer, but the lower end guys might though.

 

 

 If you're confused about something ask for clarification. I was responding to the idea that contract values would have less meaning. Escrow already made contract values subject to revenue. It's just that no-one foresaw such a drastic scenario.

Edited by RWMc1
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Salaries are based on the revenue sharing concept. That was the reason for the lockout. Players have to bite the bullet on this. The owners and top end players won't suffer, but the lower end guys might though.

Yep.  I just don't know if enough can be held back in escrow to account for what could be lost by empty buildings.  Fingers crossed everyone is happy enough that (assuming it is safe enough) we continue to have hockey after all the beans are counted and divvied up.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
13 hours ago, DeNiro said:

The Seattle Seamen has a nice ring to it. :bigblush:

I've heard that this name was being given serious consideration.

 

13 hours ago, Jaimito said:

Maybe they will unveil the team name or logo tomorrow.

 

 

 

I was waiting for them to pull the Cup out of that net. I see that they had already caught a dogfish....

 

                                                           regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait to hear it...

 

Seattle Trowlers

Seattle Kraken

Seattle Sea Ice

Seattle Sealice, haha

Seattle Gulls

Seattle Slough's

Seattle Sealions

Seattle Seafarers

Washington State Wumpus

i give up, lets just wait the 14 minutes and see shall we?

 

OOooo Seattle Salmon Kings?

Seattle Squall?

Edited by Primal Optimist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...