DIBdaQUIB Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Interesting statements. Facts are that attendance, overall, has never been higher, and revenues have never been higher than last season. EACH year since the last lock-out has seen records in revenues. So somebody out there likes the product and to say that the sport is being killed is, well, a little exagerated I would say. How many games in a row is the canucks sell-out? And I can guarantee 2 things: 1) your second thoughts will NOT make you become any less of a fan when the game returns and 2) the owners know that. Weber said it best: it's a business. If you invest yourself emotionally in it, you will get hurt because it is run as a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 No! Which is why the league is so heavy-handed. Teams that are losing money actually do better with the league shut down so they are willing to hold-out as long as possible to starve the players. Eventually the relationship will sour to where it may not be salvageable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBossy Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Few thoughts: A) We all say if there's a lockout we won't watch anymore but we will. I have worked in several unionized worksites and we always worked even without a contract - the fact the NHL and the NHLPA left it so long to begin bargaining is why we will have a lockout ( I haven't checked their CBA but most agreements allow for negotiations to start before the old contract expires) C) As someone else has said it will be an opportunity to go out and support our local junior hockey teams (By the way I am in PG too and no way in hell will the Cougars win anything while the current owner and his son-in-law run the team - GO SPRUCE KINGS!!!) D) I find the owners argument for salary rollbacks and lesser percentage of revenue for players ridiculous - in any other business if the workers (players) had contributed so much to the financial success of the company they would be offered wage increases etc. Life will go on folks - my worry is the damage that will be done to the game south of the border and the relationship between players/owners Bettman needs to go - we need someone who has played the game to run and grow the league - not some big ego little rat lawyer from the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBossy Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Not investing one-self emotionally is not possible for a true fan. If being a fan was a business, 26 teams in the NHL would have no-one cheering for them as the fans would all support the top contenders. It's that same emotion that, if pushed hard enough, can result in a push-back and true fans walking away. I can barely recall a single "beautiful" goal during last year's playoffs. Mad scrambles where the goalie gets sat on or crazy deflections that magically make it through the mass of 10 players standing in front of the net are now the norm. Yes the fan-base has increased but only in the marginal markets as it was always solid in the true hockey markets. The product the NHL now supports is directed at creating parity so that lower-spending, weaker teams can have the possibility of winning the cup (and therefore, attracting fans). Talent is trumped by size, and a reffing system that allows the systemic abuse of smaller, faster and more talented players. I mourn for the days where beautiful goals were celebrated versus now where the commentators can only comment on how disciplined defensively a team is and how they give up no scoring chances. Wow!!! that's exciting. It's like watching basketball with a 15 foot high basket, or football with one down. Hockey may be gaining an American audience but that is only because they were never familiar with what the game used to be like. This last year's SCF was about as exciting as watching concrete dry. THat as much as anything could see me following a different path at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tybarber Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Question about the revenue sharing issue. Does this revenue share mean that at the end of the season under the current CBA the NHLPA gets a check for 57% of the revenue, and then that is divided among all NHL players, in addition to their salaries? What's wrong with 50/50... right down the middle.... I don't know what will be more depresseing, Canucks losing in 7 or hockey gone for a year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Don't kid yourself. The owners are the ones that made this decision. Bettman is just the man delivering the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 What do you mean 'thank you Bettman?? The NHL has made their offer (which of course the NHLPA has not officially responded to almost a month later) and if the players do not want a lock-out, all they have to do is accept it and sign on. It is the players that will trigger the lock-out, not the owners. The owners have made their offer. Don't let Fehr fool you and think that it's all about Bettman. The players can play this september if they want to, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedinry Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I must be the only one who's seeing the Owner's side of things. Shea Weber, Parise getting 26M in 2 years, crappy players getting superstar money. Look at our team, we look dwarfed comparing to other team's payment structures. Sedin's make 6.1 each!!! They are top 5 in the league, Parise is getting paid 14+ this year!! I don't know if 46% is right, but 50% sounds about right. Also Bettman saying this is probably for the best. Donald Fehr was an idiot for stating the league would play if no deal was in place. No league in the world has done that. All in all, let's get this done boys, theres no point in locking out, they all know it will only hurt the fans and the players as fans won't care as much a year from now. Please don't forget, The USA cares about NFL, NBA, MLB and not the NHL. Hell I think the PGA is bigger than the NHL in the States as a whole. Also seriously, let's take the trash out. Take out a Florida team, take out Columbus, Take out Coyotes and maybe even Predators. With 4 teams gone, games will be good EVERY NIGHT. Am I the only one stuck with crapty Canucks vs CBJ tickets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 You my friend need to stop smoking crack. A LOCKOUT - is the owners locking out the players from playing. If the players are choosing not to play it's called - A STRIKE Players cannot trigger a lockout and Bettman knows very well that his first propsal would never fly with the NHLPA. Imagine if Bettman gave a proposal that the NHLPA signed off on immediately, he would be fired so fast his head would spin. Yes the players could stop a lockout by signing on the dotted line but there is no way in hell they were ever going to agree to the owners first propsal. I am not team Fehr by any means and I personally am on the side of the owners for the most part as the players only have to play and make lots of money for doing so but the owners have to take care of everything else. Edit: As for you last assinine statement - players cannot play if they are locked out by the owners period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rampage Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooo The Canucks are aging and we can't have a year off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Interesting statements. Facts are that attendance, overall, has never been higher, and revenues have never been higher than last season. EACH year since the last lock-out has seen records in revenues. So somebody out there likes the product and to say that the sport is being killed is, well, a little exagerated I would say. How many games in a row is the canucks sell-out? And I can guarantee 2 things: 1) your second thoughts will NOT make you become any less of a fan when the game returns and 2) the owners know that. Weber said it best: it's a business. If you invest yourself emotionally in it, you will get hurt because it is run as a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I don't know what so many people are getting worked up over. September 15th is more than a month away. In contract negotiating terms, that's an eternity from now. These things always get done at the last minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juwanski Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 One more nail in the coffin of what the NHL used to be. Greed is killing what was the greatest sport. The insistence to have and maintain franchises in non-hockey markets together with the greed of the owners is destroying the product. How unfirtunate there isn't an alternative for pro hockey in NA. If there was, the NHL owners and their incompetent a$$ of a CEO would all be singing a different tune. I've been a hockey fan since I was being held by my gramps to watch games in black and white. The combination of all the politics, greed and BS rule changes is making me have second thoughts of whether the NHL is even worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Two thumbs up - well said. ALthough you have to admit the Philly/Pitts series was a blast to watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Actually wrong. Lets say for an instance that Florida got move to Quebec city and the Toronto area got another team. Revenue would be at an alltime high but teams such as Tampa, Nashville,Islanders,Columbus. are all at the bottom of the list and none of them would be able to stay alive with a higher salary cap. The best solution is to reduce the size of the NHL, but players would never have this. On a side note i would like to see the NHL reduce the 82 game schedule also. I love watching 82 games+ a year but a sport that requires such a long sustain period of physical play should have less games. With less teams and less games played the games would be much more entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 The owners painted themselves into this corner and once again want the players and fans to pay for their ineptitude. Ridiculous. To those commenting on the money players like Weber and Parise are getting, that's just another strike against the owners. They're the ones that signed off on those deals. They lined up to offer Parise, Suter and Weber ridiculous money with huge bonuses and term. To do that one week and then turn around and say this has to change.... that's just hypocritical. $3.3 billion in revenues and they're crying poor, despite throwing hundred million dollar contracts at players on July 1st? Sorry owners, I call BS. If you can't do deals like that, then don't sign off on them. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juwanski Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 What do you mean 'thank you Bettman?? The NHL has made their offer (which of course the NHLPA has not officially responded to almost a month later) and if the players do not want a lock-out, all they have to do is accept it and sign on. It is the players that will trigger the lock-out, not the owners. The owners have made their offer. Don't let Fehr fool you and think that it's all about Bettman. The players can play this september if they want to, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Long time left to negotiate a deal. seems rather silly of the owners to moan about a deal they signed just a few years ago tho. some players will go to the KHL,and Swedish elite league etc. I wonder how many North American cities have ice rinks that seat 15,000 plus. perhaps billionaires that have been denied an NHL team will look into a new league? Vancouver -Pacific Colliseum Hamilton Is the old Nordique building still standing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juwanski Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Not sure what you mean by wrong but...I agree with a lesser schedule and fewer teams. In support of my earlier post, more teams, more games means more $$ for the owners, especially in the USA. That was the basis for the entire business strategy of expanding into the good old Southern States. It's about TV revenue and profits not because they actually believed Bubba and all his friends would put down their footballs and lace on skates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar baby watermelon Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 U suck the life out of hockey Bettman, I wish that beer connected with u during ur handing over the cup to Chara in my building, would have redeemed giving over the cup to my enemy you stupid tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.