ULF_55
Moderator
There may be no new fans but there will be more fans attending games. NHL is a gate not television revenue league. Fans that cannot attend games do not contribute to the gate.
Confirmed with Link: Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th
- Thread starter The Blue Devil
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
There may be no new fans but there will be more fans attending games. NHL is a gate not television revenue league. Fans that cannot attend games do not contribute to the gate.
Was talking more about the loss in revenues/profits from established and very profitable franchises due to a over-saturated market with 12 Canadian teams.
the leafs payroll was 10 mil below the cap and they raised the prices, plus they did not even make the playoffs in the past 7 years, owners getting greedy.
next year even with the rollback ,the leafs will once again raise ticket prices.
Anthrax442
Registered User
I have no problem with the lockout. Let's hope this time, there can be some meaningful change such as the elimination of a salary cap and reduction in the number of teams. Ideally, expansion towards Europe would be perfect and this can be included in the playoffs (not regular season).
Warden of the North
Ned Stark's head
So Bill Daly was just asked straight up by Elliot Friedman (sorry, from sateliite radio~no link) if there was going to be a season this year. A straight yes or no answer, nothing else, and he said "yes", with no faltering, hmmm'ing or hawing.
Take that as you will.
Take that as you will.
ULF_55
Moderator
Warden of the North
Ned Stark's head
With the cap, the rich teams have a 16 million advantage. No cap, the rich teams have a 50 million + advantage.
I'm a fan of the richest team... but I still think that simply buying all the good players with our dramatic financial advantage isn't as good as a capped league where intelligence matters.
I agree that both the owners and the players have gotten ridiculously greedy.
But one side had half of it's members lose money last year. The other group almost doubled their salaries over the last 7years.
Pretty easy to choose a group to side with...
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 78,278
- 45,493
The price of my seats(Purples) went down coming out of the lockout and haven't risen since. I'd expect them to remain the same coming out of this lockout.
This is not entirely true; the Leafs, even while they were a good hockey team pre-lockout, were still outsmarted with intelligence by some other teams, who had no financial advantage.
It's incredibly simple-minded and inaccurate to suggest the rich will just buy up all the good players. There will be a correlation, yes, but not a cause.
What is wrong with this? In the NBA, any team would offer Lebron James 20M a year. In the NFL, Adrian Peterson or something, would easily get that. I don't even have to mention baseball.
The truly elite players want to be paid as truly elite players. It's as simple as that.
Donald Fehr is part of the reason, along with agents such as Scott Boras, that inflated contracts for the perceived elite in baseball are so high.
The owners aren't making money by having leecher-franchises in particular locations that are not an economically viable hockey market.
And player salaries, particularly the top level players have are lower with respect to other leagues, while the middle level has greatly increased. In other words, you can say the NHL has become more socialist or something
Crosby, Stamkos and Malkin may have earned a combined $26 million last season, which is the salary of Alex Rodriguez for one season. How is this fair to them? This bargaining is clearly for the superstar players, as many lower-level players only suffer.
This. And if there is a problem with teams spending so much, then introduce a luxury tax and be done with it.
This whole North American model of 30 teams and a salary cap is laughable.
the owners that you think that are losing money, they have to work harder and smarter on making money.
players are paid to play hard, if not they are gone.
so its not the players fault they dont know how to make money with there franchises
there have been new owners come to losing franchises and have made it work.
dont get caught up in what the owners say, they are billionaires
And all 3 of those leagues have considerably larger revenues than the NHL does. If you want to find a $20M equivalent for other leagues, try looking for $50-60M+ contracts among the wealthy leagues.
Within the league, certainly, but they have been for the past 2 or so decades. Compared to other, more profitable leagues? Not a chance.
What about the rest of the teams that are barely breaking even? Flames, Pens, Flyers, Bruins, etc. Given the last CBA's framework, there are only 5-6 "economically viable" hockey markets.
And player salaries, particularly the top level players have are lower with respect to other leagues, while the middle level has greatly increased. In other words, you can say the NHL has become more socialist or something
Crosby, Stamkos and Malkin may have earned a combined $26 million last season, which is the salary of Alex Rodriguez for one season. How is this fair to them? This bargaining is clearly for the superstar players, as many lower-level players only suffer.
Minimum salaries are pretty similar across the leagues. Around $500k. Maximum salaries are influenced by what the individual leagues can afford. It only makes sense.
If the players wanted to make baseball player type salaries, they "picked" the wrong sport.
Having almost $50 million extra to spend on your players is of course a MUCH bigger advantage than an extra $16 million (difference between cap ceiling and basement).
I mean come on... this is pretty much just common sense.
It's almost a patronizing question to ask someone "Do you think a team would be better if they can spend $50 million extra on their players? Or just $16 million extra?"
The owners aren't making money by having leecher-franchises in particular locations that are not an economically viable hockey market.
And player salaries, particularly the top level players have are lower with respect to other leagues, while the middle level has greatly increased. In other words, you can say the NHL has become more socialist or something
Crosby, Stamkos and Malkin may have earned a combined $26 million last season, which is the salary of Alex Rodriguez for one season. How is this fair to them? This bargaining is clearly for the superstar players, as many lower-level players only suffer.
Rodriguez plays for a team that has twice as many home games and can hold almost three times as many people with a television contract that is... uh... approximately 5 billion times higher (give or take? just an estimate) than the typical hockey team
Of COURSE Rodriguez will make more money than people like Crosby.
So you think the owners should just be "smarter" and then there's no problems. Wow. You really don't think that that is an unprecedented dramatic oversimplification?
If the small market teams are smart with their money, they have no star players, can't win, and lose fans.
If the small market teams throw ridiculous money to try and get star players, pro PA people say "why they spending money they don't have?"
They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.
Under a strong capped system, the poor teams have a fighting chance, and have a much better chance of growing a fan base.
The owners are already doing their part to try and grow the game. Half of them are losing millions per year, and the other half are sharing hundreds of millions of dollars with them.
All while the millionaire player salaries have almost doubled in 7 years.
It's shocking that anybody could support the players at this time. If the millionaire players taking a hit creates a healthier league with increased parity, then that's what I support.
If my brother or uncle or something was an nhl player, then I would selfishly support the players I guess. But as a casual fan? Why would anybody support millionaire players having more money at the expense of a healthier and better league?
Doesn't make any sense..
ULF_55
Moderator
Billionaires being stupid doesn't seem to elicit much sympathy from me? Not sure why?
when you cant make money and your losing money, you either close or move your business, not the players problem
a 15 year old kid playing hockey is worried about improving himself, not how to make a business work. he will become the product, its up to the owners to make money.
Ok. Let's pretend that the billionaire owners are stupid. That they just made their billions of dollars from luck. Stupid lucky owners.
So let's keep pretending... the league doesn't function properly because of their "stupidity".
Fine.
The "stupid" owners need the cba's they are offering to protect the league from their "stupidity". Again, it would mean that the millionaire players taking a hit would create a healthier league with more parity. The only negative? The millionaire players will make a little less money, while still being super ridiculously rich.
Don't you get it?
I don't care if the owners are stupid. I don't care if the players are geniuses.
What I want is a healthier league with parity. A league where intelligence is the main factor in determining success.. not money.
And it's the owners offer's that create a league that would be better for nhl fans in general.
The players offers are good for one group and one group only... the players.
It's why I can't for the life of me understand why some fans support the players.
You think the owners are "greedy" and "stupid". But who cares?
Don't you just want a better league?
I thought the players and owners were in a "partnership"?
So the problems in the league are only the responsibility of one of the partners?
That's silly.
And, by the way, some Canadian teams currently thriving were failing 10 years ago. According to your genius logic, those teams should have "closed or moved their business".
It's a good thing the billionaire owners know more about business than you.
What else do they know? The league needs a cba similar to what they're offering in order to succeed. What stands in the way of that? One thing. Just one thing. Player's greed.
ULF_55
Moderator
Paying the players less won't make the product better, and we already know having the lowest ticket prices doesn't make people care about hockey.
It isn't about how much the players make it is about being in markets that just don't like or care about hockey.
owners got there cba 7 years ago, cap. i guess it did not work, they must be stupid.
players are paid what the oners offer them, no gun to there head.
move some teams. get rid of bettman, no one wants to deal with him, starting with the tv networks and bigger and more sponsers
highest paid athlete in CANADA is not even a hockey player.
disgrace, that hockey is our sport, and how hard , how much it cost, and how many years it takes to become a hockey player.
and its the hockey players that are greedy, the canadian players.
watch the canadian juniors play, and call them all greedy players , worth nothing, dont cheer for them.
there going to work there ass off, they would die to win a cup for canada, but there greedy over paid stupid non educated athletes
disgrace, that hockey is our sport, and how hard , how much it cost, and how many years it takes to become a hockey player.
and its the hockey players that are greedy, the canadian players.
watch the canadian juniors play, and call them all greedy players , worth nothing, dont cheer for them.
there going to work there ass off, they would die to win a cup for canada, but there greedy over paid stupid non educated athletes
Last edited:
Players making less won't make the product worse, either.
It will stabilize some franchises, allowing them to spend more money not only on improving their team by spending to the reduced cap, but an additional $5-10M on improving front office/scouting, and potentially marketing. Profitable teams seem to spend around $55M on non-player salary expenses, which most teams around the league cannot afford (including some Canadian markets).
- Status
