Guest Devsrule Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Which side is being the most stubborn and greedy, therefore being the side to force a lockout??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 A lockout is initiated by the owners (as opposed to a strike which is initiated by the players). They are both unsympathetic and greedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Calgarians and Edmontonians. THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR TEAMS!!! THE GREEDY BASTARDS!!! You look at attendance, you look at TV ratings, you look the new TV contracts.... you can see that the revenue is dwindling and yet average salaries keep rising. we keep saying that it is greedy owners vs greedy players. Owners who want to make more money vs players who want more money. Owners? Make money? Dr. McMullen never made a dime on the Devils. He lost money year after year after freakin' year. He was like a Eugene Melnyk - someone who loved hockey and was willing to lose some of his own personal fortune to keep a hockey team going. Some teams are making money hand over fist - the Ontario teachers pension fund has one of the safest investments in the entire world - the Toronto Maple Leafs. But many teams are on the brink of bankruptcy. And that is not just annual operating expenses - there are huge massive, massive debts that are sitting there unpaid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 (edited) The owners gave the players their contracts, Are you saying that they did not know their teams were losing money? These are generally smart businessmen. If they were really losing that much money they would not have thrown it around so much. I have no sympathy for them. As I have said before, no city has a right to a pro sports team. I am sure Hartford, Winnipeg, etc wanted to keep their teams too. But, in the end they could not afford it and they moved. It happens. Edited May 18, 2004 by PeteyNice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 As I have said before, no city has a right to a pro sports team. I am sure Hartford, Winnipeg, etc wanted to keep their teams too. But, in the end they could not afford it and they moved. It happens. You say that like it's a great thing. The problem with your laissez-faire system would KILL hockey in Canada. Calgary only have 1M people if that. But the majority of the city is hockey crazy. On the other hand, LA has 4M people but a tiny fraction know what a two line pass is. But because of the dollar and because of greater advertising revenues because of a larger population base, you would keep the Kings and kill the Flames. You want to take hockey from a place where they have the red mile, where people line up for a mile waving flags, holding up posters and banners to the passing motorists, do face-painting.... a place that is absolutely hockey MAD and leave a team in a place where the average citizen could give two sh!ts about hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KYdevil Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I say we blame Kentucky! This state sucks and would rather watch a 2 min horse race than a great 60 min hockey game. I honestly believe that if a lockout happens its both sides we should blame. I mean, surely there is a compromise to be made somewhere. Sure, the players may not get everything they want, but make it so the owners dont either. they can see where the middle is, its just neither one of them want to go there. Im so upset about all this lockout nonesense Im thinking of redoing my hockey room. Making into a...I dunno...a quitling room for my wife or something.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 The owners gave the players their contracts, Are you saying that they did not know their teams were losing money? These are generally smart businessmen. If they were really losing that much money they would not have thrown it around so much. I have no sympathy for them. I keep hearing this argument over and over, but what are the owners supposed to do, sit on their hands as teams like the Rangers and Wings and Avs and Flyers buy up ALL the best talent? Then they'd be accused of not caring enough and sitting on their money like say, the Milwaukee Brewers are. It's a tough choice but some of them spend beyond their means to try to keep up with the joneses (although that said, a lot of owners are showing restraint nowadays because of the success of teams like the Wild and Flames), hoping that enough winning will give them profits or that they won't lose 'too' much money. It may be ill-advised, but if you buy a sports team a lot of times you're not buying it because it's a good investment, you're buying it because you want to win. As I have said before, no city has a right to a pro sports team. I am sure Hartford, Winnipeg, etc wanted to keep their teams too. But, in the end they could not afford it and they moved. It happens. So it's okay in your world that cities that DO have a passion for hockey lose their teams while cities like Phoenix and Carolina that couldn't care less about the sport have teams? How are those moves working out, I don't see those teams being huge successes in their new markets. It's all about the short-term dollar with you, which is an approach that isn't going to help the game grow. Hockey ALREADY has issues with fan support, ratings and the like, taking away more towns that care about hockey is going to make the NHL a joke league in short order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I say we blame Kentucky! This state sucks and would rather watch a 2 min horse race than a great 60 min hockey game. Making into a...I dunno...a quitling room for my wife or something.... I couldn't agree with you more. Uh but don't be too hasty about that quilting room. I bet that is a sport in Kentucky too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 There are only certain amoutn of roster spots on Detroit, Rangers, etc. There would still be ample talent available for the other teams. Even those teams have budgets so they would not be able to have 20 all star calibre players on their roster. Phoenix has to be at least somewhat successful as they got the voters to build them an arena. You can say many bad things about Bettman's expansion but it did grow the game and take it to many non-traditional markets. IIRC, the ratings for the Finals last year was the highest hockey ratings ever. If there is a long lockout the league in the United States is screwed plain and simple. You could have a 16 team post-lockout NHL. That is far too steep a price to pay to keep Calgary and Edmonton around. The owners knew what they were getting into and knew what their financial situation was before they signed players to big money contracts. Now the birds are coming home to roost and they don't like it. I am firmly against ANY system that guarantees every team a profit just for showing up. No other business is run that way. A team should make or lose money based on how well its players do on the ice not just for having a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 There are only certain amoutn of roster spots on Detroit, Rangers, etc. There would still be ample talent available for the other teams. Even those teams have budgets so they would not be able to have 20 all star calibre players on their roster. Phoenix has to be at least somewhat successful as they got the voters to build them an arena. You can say many bad things about Bettman's expansion but it did grow the game and take it to many non-traditional markets. IIRC, the ratings for the Finals last year was the highest hockey ratings ever. If there is a long lockout the league in the United States is screwed plain and simple. You could have a 16 team post-lockout NHL. That is far too steep a price to pay to keep Calgary and Edmonton around. The owners knew what they were getting into and knew what their financial situation was before they signed players to big money contracts. Now the birds are coming home to roost and they don't like it. I am firmly against ANY system that guarantees every team a profit just for showing up. No other business is run that way. A team should make or lose money based on how well its players do on the ice not just for having a team. There are only about fifty all-star caliber players in a given year. If say the top six teams have three or four of those players, that's around twenty. That leaves thirty (and in most cases, the lower thirty) for the other twenty-six teams. Most other teams wouldn't have more than one, so they wind up overpaying for second-tier talent in a futile attempt to compensate. Is the Phoenix arena hockey-only or a hockey/basketball facility? I'd think the Arizona residents care a lot more about the Suns than the Coyotes. Expansion is one thing, and everyone pretty much agrees that the NHL (like every other sport) has gone too far with expansion BUT unlike some, I do see the logic of at least trying to grow other markets. But relocation is a different animal. Especially when owners relocate for short-term profit. I don't think anyone wants to guarantee a profit except the owners. I either want a mid-level salary cap - and not this ridiculous $31 million figure bantied about by the NHL; that's way overboard, maybe $50 million or around there so the lower teams would 'have' to spend a little - or an NBA-like soft cap where you can spend as much as you damn well please on your OWN players (which DOES reward good front-office work since while you can overpay for your own players you can't sign FA's unless you have cap room) - but without the hoops you have to jump through (figuratively) to make trades work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 They wouldn't have to over pay for second tier talent because the teams they would be competing against for the most part are not the big spending teams. If they choose to overspend like Boston with Lapointe then they have to deal with it. The players should not suffer because of it. The Glendale Arena is a hockey-only facility I am not talking about moving them. I am talking about contracting them. I could see a team maybe moving to Houston or Seattle, but generally I am against teams moving. However, I am for teams just folding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 Both sides have to shoulder the blame. Including the league itself. Owners did make there own bed, and players have to realize this is the NHL, not NFL, NBA or MLB. Hell they aren't even NASCAR. They don't have the pull of the other sports and a lot of that falls on the league. I personally think the product is fine, it's just needs to be placed in the window and not on the bottom shelf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 They wouldn't have to over pay for second tier talent because the teams they would be competing against for the most part are not the big spending teams. Right. Players look at what the players on the big bucks teams are making and they ask, no... DEMAND the same salary. Or they sit out. See Yashin. If they choose to overspend like Boston with Lapointe then they have to deal with it. The players should not suffer because of it. Boston is a great example of a team that overspend. Ptht. Boston is a great example of a team that spend about equal to their revenue and never win anything. However, I am for teams just folding. Come back to me when you are willing to say that you are 100% FOR the Devils folding. I think it rather selfish to want to take away my local NHL hockey when your local NHL hockey is a perenial money loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 I never said I was against the Devils folding. If they feel they cannot survive they should fold. I mean we get the "we're moving to Nashville, Portland, wherever" routine every few years anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 So we can get this on the record for everyone here to see: PeteyNice is NOT against the Devils folding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 I would not be happy about it, but I would understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 Profitability cannot be the determining factor for a franchise for the reason Don states: owning a sports franchise gives some owners pleasure, to the point they will sink revenues from other enterprises in order to win. This is not true of other enterprises, and if it were, their competitors wouldn't care. It's also the case that plenty of teams can show consistent profits and never win, and never make the move to win. Such an accusation has oft been leveled at Toronto, whose fan base and ownership would be highly conducive to this situation. The problem with profitability, Petey, is that it's impossible to predict. I do not think that general managers do risk/reward analyses before they sign a free agent, or analyze what the potential profit is of bringing in player X. They just do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 Sounds like another case of boys will be boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 We should have a poll: Are you in favour of: (A) Finding a solution that does not involve the Devils folding or (B) Finding a solution that does involve the Devils folding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 That would be totally unfair. A better poll would be: who would you rather see fold: a) Calgary and Edmonton b) Devils and Islanders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 Let's see if we can follow this logic. Calgary and Edmonton would be able to support teams post-two-year lockout because the people of Canada are hockey fans and would support NHL hockey to the end of the earth. On the other hand, the Devils and Islanders would NOT survive post-two-year lockout because the people in the US barely care about the sport. This is your theory, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 That was where I was going, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewarkDevil5 Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 First of all, the Devils wouldn't fold in a 2 year lockout. The Islanders might relocate or fold, but even that I think is doubtful. Fact is that Vanderbeek JUST bought the team. He didn't sink that money in the team just to fold it up within two years of buying it. I'm not buying this whole "teams are going to fold in an extended lockout" bit. During the lockout the teams don't have to pay player salaries unless they're guaranteed and only a select few teams have guaranteed contracts. During the lockout they don't pay for travel, trainers or any of those other costs. Granted they don't make any money from tickets or advertising either. In the end their major costs are front office, scouting and leases (assuming they can't suspend their leases). They still make money from licensing. Teams will lose money, but not major amounts. As for whether or not the fans will come back post-lockout, hockey fans are hockey fans. There aren't many casual fans at the moment so we have little to worry about losing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.