Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by Dana

That doesn't help the New York Islanders move towards turning a profit.

And why aren't the Islanders turning a profit? Could it have something to do with horrendous management and alienating a formerly large and loyal fan base? Yet the players, who had nothing to do with running a proud franchise into the ground should take a paycut in order to help the Islanders make money? What law says that a horribly run business is entitled to turn a profit no matter what?

The Islanders are just one example of a poorly run club which is dragging down total NHL revenues. We can also talk about many other poor decisions made by other clubs and the league in general which caused the overall pie to shrink. How much would the league have made if the Jets had been in Winnipeg all this time? Phoenix had been in Hamilton? All of these things seriously piss off the NHLPA, which sees thiese as poor decisions which it had nothing to do with, which bring down the size of the "pie" they get to share, yet owners got large chunks of cash as relocation and/or expansion fees which the NHLPA did not get a piece of.

Putting aside all the numbers and fancy talk, the bottom line issue is really very simple. Since the last lockout, two NHL groups have done very, very well for themselves - the players and clubs at the top of the heap as far as profits are concerned (Toronto, New York, Philly, etc). Some clubs have not done well and need help. There really is no big disagreement that the poor performing clubs need help. The big fight is over who should pay for that help, or at least most of it - the players or the rich clubs. That's it.

The Business Of Hockey

No need to contract but there is no reason why there can't be an agreement that will make sense so that the majority of teams don't lose money as a rule.


Oh, and by the way:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406835

Originally Posted by santiclaws

...Yet the players, who had nothing to do with running a proud franchise into the ground should take a paycut in order to help the Islanders make money? What law says that a horribly run business is entitled to turn a profit no matter what?

If this were a standard business model the owner would have declared bankruptcy and the players would be out on their asses pumping gas somewhere. This is not a normal business environment... these clubs pretty much must stay put so the players pretty much have to suck it up and pay out for the losses. Should there be a team in Phoenix or Dallas...probably not. But do those teams being there, instead of two cities in Canada or Minnesota help the Kings... you bet it does...big-time! Travel takes its toll and it really helps to have a clump of teams closer rather than further. Either way neither the players nor owners want contraction, so it's not going to happen. And hockey will probably never be all that popular outside it's core group of fans either. At my company employees fight over baseball and basketball tickets... hockey tickets go to me and one other person. No one even wanted Kings playoff tickets until they reached the finals. That's just the way it is (except in Canada I suppose). Except for one or two deadbeats the owners have to be able to make a profit. I don't agree that we need a salary rollback like the players proposed last time, but we need a cap freeze and owners getting a minimum 51% on hrr by year 3 of a 6 or 7 year deal. Push up the sharing by 20%. Player endorsements go 100% to the player.... that should be 50/50. Players get guaranteed money even when they play like **** or get hurt and have to be replaced. The owners take the money risks here, they should be getting the lions share of revenues/profits.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

And why aren't the Islanders turning a profit? Could it have something to do with horrendous management and alienating a formerly large and loyal fan base? Yet the players, who had nothing to do with running a proud franchise into the ground should take a paycut in order to help the Islanders make money? What law says that a horribly run business is entitled to turn a profit no matter what?

The Islanders are just one example of a poorly run club which is dragging down total NHL revenues. We can also talk about many other poor decisions made by other clubs and the league in general which caused the overall pie to shrink. How much would the league have made if the Jets had been in Winnipeg all this time? Phoenix had been in Hamilton? All of these things seriously piss off the NHLPA, which sees thiese as poor decisions which it had nothing to do with, which bring down the size of the "pie" they get to share, yet owners got large chunks of cash as relocation and/or expansion fees which the NHLPA did not get a piece of.

Putting aside all the numbers and fancy talk, the bottom line issue is really very simple. Since the last lockout, two NHL groups have done very, very well for themselves - the players and clubs at the top of the heap as far as profits are concerned (Toronto, New York, Philly, etc). Some clubs have not done well and need help. There really is no big disagreement that the poor performing clubs need help. The big fight is over who should pay for that help, or at least most of it - the players or the rich clubs. That's it.

The Islanders aren't making money because they play in an outdated arena without many modern amenities or revenue streams that just about every other team has available to them. They're also considered in a major media market when they don't have the revenues that a team like the Rangers has and can't qualify for revenue sharing. Has the running of the franchise contributed to today's mess with the Islanders? Yes. But at the same time if you can't make money, you're not going to go out and spend near the ceiling for a great roster that you can't really afford. It's a catch 22 situation with them.

Winnipeg played in an outdated arena at the time they moved to Phoenix. The MTS Center didn't open until 2004 and still has a small capacity for a hockey arena. You also had the Canadian dollar doing a lot worse than it is today and things like the Canadian assistance plan that helped keep Calgary and Edmonton where they are. The Canucks were taking money from the Canadian Assistance Plan in the late 90s early 2000s. People forget that. Expanding into Canada in the late 1990s wasn't an option. Putting a team in Hamilton is going to cost the NHL a lot of money in territorial rights fees going to the Sabres and Leafs. Quebec City doesn't have an NHL ready arena right now.

Originally Posted by Dana

The Islanders aren't making money because they play in an outdated arena without many modern amenities or revenue streams that just about every other team has available to them.

And whose fault is that?

Originally Posted by Dana

Winnipeg played in an outdated arena at the time they moved to Phoenix.

Who made Phoenix move to Glendale, which is too far for even die hard hockey fans, to say nothing of casual fans.


Like I said, it is not in dispute that some clubs are not doing well, although no one knows exactly how any particular club is doing. The question is: who is to pay for the majority of it - the players or the other owners?

Well, I hate to say it, but from what I'm reading things are possibly looking up. Maybe there's a chance this will get done soon...

Originally Posted by santiclaws

And whose fault is that?

Who made Phoenix move to Glendale, which is too far for even die hard hockey fans, to say nothing of casual fans.


Like I said, it is not in dispute that some clubs are not doing well, although no one knows exactly how any particular club is doing. The question is: who is to pay for the majority of it - the players or the other owners?

On the Isles I would say politicians and ownership for not getting an arena deal done. Wang has been trying to get something done.

For the Coyotes, America West Arena was a small arena with sightline issues when the Coyotes moved there. Would they have been better off staying in Winnipeg, in a small arena, with no boxes, and a Canadian dollar somewhere in the $0.70 US range? That I don't know if anyone could say. If they didn't move to Phoenix, I don't know that Winnipeg was more viable in the mid 90s, early 2000s. I think the Jets would have been moved somewhere. The ownership fiasco hasn't helped things any. I don't know that I would want to keep supporting the team if there were always rumors that the team was going to move.

I'm still not 100% sure what the solution is. More revenue sharing is an obvious one, especially since the NHLPA will never go for contraction. I don't think publically financed arenas are the best move for cities to make but some teams need better arena situations. I do wonder how many teams would be better off away from the ice if the on-ice situation were better.

LOL, even with the news that both sides are making progress...

(NHL, union meet Friday, plan for more talks - ESPN)

"The decision to cancel the first two weeks of the NHL season is the unilateral choice of the NHL owners," Donald Fehr said in a statement. "If the owners truly cared about the game and the fans, they would lift the lockout and allow the season to begin on time while negotiations continue.

"A lockout should be the last resort in bargaining, not the strategy of first resort. For nearly 20 years, the owners have elected to lock out the players in an effort to secure massive concessions. Nevertheless, the players remain committed to playing hockey while the parties work to reach a deal that is fair for both sides. We hope we will soon have a willing negotiating partner."

---

This guy is just as big of a scumbag as the rest of them. He can take his cutesy PR and shove it.

Yeah. At this point I don't know who he thinks he's fooling.