Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by CUP4LA

If the miss a whole season they are effectively taking 0%.

Geniuses, all of them.

Originally Posted by CUP4LA

If the miss a whole season they are effectively taking 0%.

And the owners are splitting 180MM 29 ways while taking a 0% from the TV deal in its extra year.

Plus they're taking 0% in ticket revenues.

Nice deal!

Originally Posted by Kubrick

And the owners are splitting 180MM 29 ways while taking a 0% from the TV deal in its extra year.

Plus they're taking 0% in ticket revenues.

Nice deal!

Many teams actually lose less money during a lockout than if they played the season since they don't have to pay the players. That's how messed up it is.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

Many teams actually lose less money during a lockout than if they played the season since they don't have to pay the players. That's how messed up it is.

That's precisely why revenue sharing has to be fixed. It's for the good of the league as a whole.

Originally Posted by Kubrick

That's precisely why revenue sharing has to be fixed. It's for the good of the league as a whole.

The higher revenue teams won't agree, and those 8 are the ones driving the Titanic.

Originally Posted by Birdman

The higher revenue teams won't agree, and those 8 are the ones driving the Titanic.

That's why I'm also in favor of relocation of the perennial bottom-feeders(in terms of revenue). Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg was a good first step. Now move Phoenix to Seattle, Columbus to Quebec City and Dallas to Hamilton and the league will be stronger for it.

Originally Posted by Kubrick

That's why I'm also in favor of relocation of the perennial bottom-feeders(in terms of revenue). Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg was a good first step. Now move Phoenix to Seattle, Columbus to Quebec City and Dallas to Hamilton and the league will be stronger for it.

I mostly agree here. I think Columbus can be salvaged. It's the Panthers who have to move. Interestingly, there is a growing number who believe the greater Toronto area can support 3 NHL teams. Toronto, Hamilton, and Markham being those 3 locations. I think the only way the NHL can ever be successful again is if there are more teams in Canada and fewer in the United States.

Originally Posted by Kubrick

That's why I'm also in favor of relocation of the perennial bottom-feeders(in terms of revenue). Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg was a good first step. Now move Phoenix to Seattle, Columbus to Quebec City and Dallas to Hamilton and the league will be stronger for it.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

I mostly agree here. I think Columbus can be salvaged. It's the Panthers who have to move. Interestingly, there is a growing number who believe the greater Toronto area can support 3 NHL teams. Toronto, Hamilton, and Markham being those 3 locations. I think the only way the NHL can ever be successful again is if there are more teams in Canada and fewer in the United States.

Actually, I think it would be better if they contract and re-locate. IMO, neither Florida team is viable in the long-run. I don't believe Columbus nor Seattle is either. I agree about the idea of having more Canadian teams but I think a 24 or 26 team league would be best.

jom

I think it's unfair to declare Florida a failure. That team hadn't seen a playoff game in 12 years until this last spring. Their tradition of throwing rats too is something that tells me that there could be something there if the team has any sort of lasting success. Tampa has also been decent from what I've seen. I don't have numbers to support this but I don't remember them having any attendance issues. Columbus is in the same boat as Florida.

Do we know who the 8 teams are? I'm assuming Philly, NYR, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, are among them.