Thread: We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Originally Posted by beedee

Tell that to the guy who works his 2nd job as an arena concession sales person...

You're kinda missing the point he's making. There wouldn't be an NHL if the owners couldn't dictate the culture that their money is being invested into. Basically that means there wouldn't be a concession worker job available to lose in the first place if the owners couldn't lock the players out and stabilize the business model.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

If it's bad (PHX), less people will buy it

Sorry, but that's completely false. The only thing that's actually bad about the Coyotes, is their location. They are in the wrong state, and probably the wrong country.

Originally Posted by ILikeTheKings

There wouldn't be an NHL if the owners couldn't dictate the culture that their money is being invested into.

Wrong. There wouldn't be an NHL without the fans, and sponsors too. The NHL has lost both fans and sponsors. But it's okay, because the NHL isn't ----ing the fans over by not playing at all.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

Sorry, but that's completely false. The only thing that's actually bad about the Coyotes, is their location. They are in the wrong state, and probably the wrong country.



Wrong. There wouldn't be an NHL without the fans, and sponsors too. The NHL has lost both fans and sponsors. But it's okay, because the NHL isn't ----ing the fans over by not playing at all.

Do you at least know what point you're making? Cause you're saying a lot of irrelevant things and I'm not entirely convinced you know what point you are even trying to make anymore.

Originally Posted by ILikeTheKings

Do you at least know what point you're making? Cause you're saying a lot of irrelevant things and I'm not entirely convinced you know what point you are even trying to make anymore.

I don't know how the NHL is nothing without the fans isn't clear? What part are you not getting?

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

I don't know how the NHL is nothing without the fans isn't clear? What part are you not getting?

Of course the NHL needs fans, but how is that at all relevant to the fact that the owners need to have a lockout option in order to run the league?

Originally Posted by ILikeTheKings

Of course the NHL needs fans, but how is that at all relevant to the fact that the owners need to have a lockout option in order to run the league?

A lockout should be the last option, not the first option. By imposing a lockout every time a CBA expires, which bettman has done, is showing the fans that they are not cared about.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

A lockout should be the last option, not the first option. By imposing a lockout every time a CBA expires, which bettman has done, is showing the fans that they are not cared about.

As long as the league can set their own new cba to play under while discussions are going on, I'm all for that (assuming that strikes are barred later in the season). If they are forced to play under an old expired cba while negotiations are going on then lockouts are the best option.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

Sorry, but that's completely false. The only thing that's actually bad about the Coyotes, is their location. They are in the wrong state, and probably the wrong country.

You're right, I screwed this one up. Should be ATL or NYI instead.

Wrong. There wouldn't be an NHL without the fans, and sponsors too. The NHL has lost both fans and sponsors. But it's okay, because the NHL isn't ----ing the fans over by not playing at all.

Wrong. While it's true that the NHL wouldn't exist without the fans, it's STILL first necessary to find 30 people to risk THEIR millions to make this entertainment possible. They are doing it because they know there is money (from fans and from sponsors) in this entertainment business...unless we're talking about the less fortunate. If 10 owners are losing money in this business, the league (owners) will do their best to fix this as much as possible, because if it's a losing money business, then this business is bad.

Originally Posted by aragorn

As long as the league can set their own new cba to play under while discussions are going on, I'm all for that (assuming that strikes are barred later in the season). If they are forced to play under an old expired cba while negotiations are going on then lockouts are the best option.

Exactly. But you know what? It would take ANOTHER lockout for the NHLPA to accept this one.

Originally Posted by aragorn

As long as the league can set their own new cba to play under while discussions are going on, I'm all for that (assuming that strikes are barred later in the season). If they are forced to play under an old expired cba while negotiations are going on then lockouts are the best option.

And I agree. At least make this lockout worth something. To me, the last one was completely pointless, because some general managers/owners found loopholes in the very thing that caused the previous lockout. And I'd be just as angry towards the NHLPA if they went on strike as I am towards the NHL.