Don Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 what about the national league in baseball then? of NBA? Same logic. At their inception, all the teams were from one country (the U.S.). NFL is still all teams from one country... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted August 28, 2004 Author Share Posted August 28, 2004 what about the national league in baseball then? of NBA? Same logic. At their inception, all the teams were from one country (the U.S.). First game in NBA history featured the Knicks against the Toronto Huskies at Maple Leaf Gardens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 http://www.hockeyrodent.com/ What If This Is What They Had In Mind All Along ? Sunday Aug 29, 12:00 AM Pacific He discusses the possibility of dissolving the NHL and setting up a new league, and sums up the reasons for doing so as follows: "There are two motivations for ownership to contemplate such dramatic machinations: 1) It permits ownership to collectively void all existing player contracts by legally dissolving the business entitity that is currently known as "The National Hockey League". 2) It permits owners in the strongest markets to summarily ditch owners of teams least "pulling their weight" " He discusses these issues in much more detail in the link I have provided, plus he provides a further link to a discussion on the site's message board about the problems dissolving the league would entail and the legal fight it would lead to. This one is worth a look, guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Typical to find this on hockey rodent (a Rangers board): "If the New Jersey Devils sign a 30-year lease to play in Newark, what's the easiest way for them to duck that obligation without owing a penny?" Answer: Vanish! Basically he's saying that the Devils wouldn't rejoin a new NHL. Perhaps the other owners wouldn't let them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Typical to find this on hockey rodent (a Rangers board): "If the New Jersey Devils sign a 30-year lease to play in Newark, what's the easiest way for them to duck that obligation without owing a penny?" Answer: Vanish! Basically he's saying that the Devils wouldn't rejoin a new NHL. Perhaps the other owners wouldn't let them. No, that's not what he's saying, Don. He's saying ALL the teams would vanish as legal entities and have to be refounded as new teams with new names. Some would re-join the league, others would not, but it was my impression from the article that Rodent believed the NJ franchise would survive, but not necessarily with a 30-year lease in Newark. The Devils are simply one example. Was it typical of a Ranger site to use the Devils as an example??? Possibly, but if you go to Hockeybird.com, also a Ranger site, you will see that he correctly interprets Rodent's article as meaning that the Rangers would vanish as the Rangers and that a new NY team would emerge, without the Ranger name, logo and history. This, according to Bird, would be the end of his following of the National Hockey League, or whatever they are going to call themselves, because whatever that team is going to pretend to be, it wouldn't be the Rangers to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 I can't believe that the owners would want to voluntarily destroy a 85-year old league and half its teams. They may be a lot of things, greedy, stupid, selfish, but I don't think borderline insane is one. How many fans do they really think they'll get per game in the event of a new league? 500? Yeah, they'll get rid of existing contracts and throw the existing fans out with it. The NHL has bad enough fan representation as it is, what's the possible advantage for them to raze it entirely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 I can't believe that the owners would want to voluntarily destroy a 85-year old league and half its teams. They may be a lot of things, greedy, stupid, selfish, but I don't think borderline insane is one. How many fans do they really think they'll get per game in the event of a new league? 500? Yeah, they'll get rid of existing contracts and throw the existing fans out with it. The NHL has bad enough fan representation as it is, what's the possible advantage for them to raze it entirely? That's why I thought it was important to post the link to Rodent's site, Has. I wasn't sure people had really thought through what it might mean if the NHL really was going to do this. And I don't think the owners are stupid enough to do it either. But I think it is important to look at the topic and understand what it would mean, legally, historically and finacially, if they tried to do it. And I think he (and all the people yelling at each other on his message board about it - one of them posted a link to the Sherman Anti-trust Act, and it is actually relevant here, although I'm not sure you'd want to plow through the thing) do a good job of covering off on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddictedToHockey Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 You know, I've talked with several people about this idea in recent months, and was kind of excited to read the article saying it's a possibility. As someone living in Southern California, it might mean one team and not two in the area, but with the current state of the NHL, I'm ready to start the league all over again. It's not just the CBA, in fact, that's not the main issue. The biggest issue by far, the one that's had me on the verge of walking away from the game I grew up with and have loved for all of my life, is the safety netting. I simply can't see through it. I've tried tinted glasses, watched through different nets, sat low and high, and nothing works. Getting side seats is now virtually impossible for anyone who didn't have them before the netting, as everyone has moved their seats there -- and as someone who hasn't lived here that long, I didn't have great priority. I did manage to get some lower level seats where the netting isn't a factor, but they're 2 to 3 times what I paid for seats before the netting was up. Is the cost worth it? I don't know. Actually, I do -- it isn't. I haven't enjoyed the action I've seen recently -- the officiating has been awful since the two-ref system, most games lack action and passion, and for all of this, I'm paying more than double what equivalent NBA tickets are in SoCal -- and the NBA, not the NHL, is the popular sport out here. I've discussed this with my parents, who date back well into the Original Six days, and both are so disgusted with the players' refusal to accept a salary cap that might limit most fans' season ticket investment to, say, 5-10% of their annual income (a ridiculous amount, but that's what the tickets cost), they say they might never be able to actually cheer for these guys again. And, I'm afraid, I'm not far behind. A new league? Absolutely -- show the players that they can't have owners and fans by the you-know-whats -- show them that they'll have to tough it out for an average of $1.3 million a year. 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.