MikeyBoy44 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 He's still no Jim Henson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I dont believe I have ever agreed with nuck nit on anything, but I like what he has to say in this thread. Wouldn't it be great if the NHL sunk 6 to 10 teams? Imagine the quality of the game then. There would be very few plumbers on any team, most teams would make the playoffs(which would make more money), and it would be even more entertaining. This plan would also eliminate the need for revenue sharing which would please the owners of the remaining 20-24 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I dont believe I have ever agreed with nuck nit on anything, but I like what he has to say in this thread. Wouldn't it be great if the NHL sunk 6 to 10 teams? Imagine the quality of the game then. There would be very few plumbers on any team, most teams would make the playoffs(which would make more money), and it would be even more entertaining. This plan would also eliminate the need for revenue sharing which would please the owners of the remaining 20-24 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Is anyone even talking about Aquilini any more in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 You are absolutely right about Christie Clark and her bunch of idiots!! Unfortunately they're still far better than the alternatives!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Is anyone even talking about Aquilini any more in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I dont believe I have ever agreed with nuck nit on anything, but I like what he has to say in this thread. Wouldn't it be great if the NHL sunk 6 to 10 teams? Imagine the quality of the game then. There would be very few plumbers on any team, most teams would make the playoffs(which would make more money), and it would be even more entertaining. This plan would also eliminate the need for revenue sharing which would please the owners of the remaining 20-24 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Francesco Aquilini. There. Based on how the Canucks organization has negotiated fair, reasonable (for both sides) contracts for all of their roster players, I would venture to say that Aquilini is actually one of the owners not in alignment with the leagues CBA position. Many of the Canucks roster could have made a million or two more in other markets, but chose to Vancouver instead. I don't really know though. Merely speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The speculation part was my point earlier in the thread. No one can prove one way or the other if Aquilini voted for or against the lockout, so no point in calling him out. It'd be one thing to debate whether he did or not, but since he'd be fined if he talked about it we won't get to hear it from the horse's mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Gary Bettman said that the vote was unanimous. Do you really think he'd lie about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I don't think I'd seen anything saying it was unanimous, although I haven't paid attention to everything that's gone on. I did know he only needed 8 of the owners to vote yes to a lockout to go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 My crap browser doen't allow me to post links or anything, but this is an excerpt from a Bruce Garrioch story in the Toronto Sun on Sept 13th: "Speaking at a packed a news conference, Bettman said he had unanimous support to lock out members of the NHL Players' Association for the third time in 18 years when the current CBA expires, a decision that doesn't come as a surprise to the players" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juwanski Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The real masters are the 15+ struggling teams that need help to make it not our owners. The problem with revenue sharing it it makes even the wealthy teams hate the current system. That would be the only reason why they would all be on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I haven't paid attention to everything that's gone on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Although those owners wouldn't be overly happy about losing their investment. Then there's around 250 players that may not be too happy either. I'm not so sure the NHLPA would be happy with that solution for that matter. But then the same could be said about the big three. The NFL, NBA and MLB would all be better with fewer teams. Each has their strong teams and weak teams. Just as they have their rich teams and poor teams. But the sad truth is, if you want national coverage, you need to be a national sport. That;s what the expansion was all about. But as I've said many times, it's a long process to get the payoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I think some of the owners might just be happy enough to have the league take their respective money-pits off their hands. The 250 players you speak of were only drafted or signed to fill holes in teams rosters, no they wouldn't be happy but back in the pre-25 + team NHL they would never have gotten to play regularly anyway. It has become a watered down league. No the NHLPA would not be happy but the higher quality players wouldn't have to worry about their jobs and they would get over losing their fourth line and 6th-7th Dman brethren eventually. You cant really compare the Big 3 in the states to hockey, the weakest of the Big 3 are probably stronger in popularity than many of the popular NHL teams in comparison. Teams like Phoenix, Anaheim, Carolina, Dallas, and even northern teams like New Jersey and NYI most of which have won at least 1 Cup or even had a dynasty(NYI), nobody really cares about or attends their games. NHL may be periodically popular in the south but will probably be a money-pit afterthought most often until those teams fold or relocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I added some to my post, but the wording of support versus a vote was where the confusion arose. A unanimous vote is one thing (as I mentioned about solidarity of the owners against the players above) but to have them all say they are in favour throughout discussions and leading into a vote may not have been the case. That does confirm they likely had enough strong support to have the rest come to agreement versus it being a case of a lot of owners not agreeing with a lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 This is absolutely a possibility, but no-one really knows for sure. However, it does pose this question: If it only takes 8 or so owners to trigger a lockout, doesn't it also follow that the same number could quash it? I'm pretty sure I could come up with 8 franchises that would seemingly be fine with carrying on the way they did with the last CBA. So why vote for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Of course there is a comparison. Each of the big three would be better with fewer teams just as the NHL would. Each of the big three have teams that struggle just as the NHL does. Just because the big three is more popular overall does not mean all their teams enjoy the same fan base and revenue.... just as in the NHL. The numbers are just bigger. If the NHL ever wants to gain the popularity of the big three and enjoy similar TV revenue they have to be a natioanl sport. It just that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Yeah,hockey can be a national sport,behind pro football,college football,baseball,basketball,college basketball,Nascar racing,golf,soccer and finally-hockey. Bettman and his U.S. billionaire buddies will be locking out NHL pro hockey players and their fans for decades to come if we are waiting for the declaration of 'national sport' status and the big payday dream of tv revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.