+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 77
Thread: NHL Lockout
-
09-16-2004 02:39 PM #31Originally Posted by EDSGOLF
Me too, I think i'm more dissapointed about no hockey pool, than no hockey!
-
09-16-2004 02:52 PM #32Originally Posted by el tigre
I don't support collusion, I support realism. If the NHLPA gets their way, owners will end up shutting down teams. Eventually, it will mean fewer jobs, so fewer salaries to pay with fewer revenues to pay them from. If I'm NHL player 'x', I'd be asking myself if making $2-million for a year is worth more than making $1-million for 3 years.
Dan[URL=http://www.sportsfiend.ca/]Sportsfiend.ca - Make You Opinion Into News...
-
09-16-2004 03:35 PM #33
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Barrhaven
- Posts
- 349
Originally Posted by el tigre
I'd have no problems with gas companies colluding to bring down gas prices. Its different because the owners would not be artificially increasing prices, rather decreasing them. The example would be more along the lines of companies colluding to pay employees less to decrease prices for a product, or to increase their profit. This needs to be included in the CBA. If the players are willing to take a pay cut, this should not simply pad the pockets of the owners, the fans should be paying less as well. There is a big difference between these two examples. Hockey's salary system is like the stock market, only they are still riding the high tech bubble. What needs to happen is that owner refuse to "buy" any player over $4-5 million and they'll have to lower their salary requests. The bubble needs to burst, bringing salaries and ticket prices down with them. I still find it hard to believe that anyone is worth $5 million/year to play any sport. I also find it hard to feel bad for guys making, at a minimum $375K (i think thats the minimum in the NHL?).
-
09-16-2004 05:04 PM #34Originally Posted by g8r
In a capitalist society, prices are determined by supply and demand. Costs determine profits - not prices. If the market is not willing to pay a price higher than your cost (due to lack of demand or over-supply), you will go out of business. If the market is willing to pay a much higher price than your cost (high demand/low supply), you get rich.
Last year, the Senators increased their payroll, but decreased their ticket prices. Is Melnyk crazy? No, he's investing in his product while bringing his prices in line with demand.
IMHO, this lockout is simply the NHL's attempt to break the union - just like the NFL did many years ago. The NFL is the most successful and richest sports league in the world. ALL of the NFL owners are pretty much guaranteed to make money - the only question is how much. Has this success filtered down to the players? - no, they are the lowest paid athletes of any sport. Has this success meant lower prices for fans? - no, they pay outrageous ticket prices. Are fans better off? - no, owners constantly move teams regardless of fan support to increase their profits even more through better stadium deals.[COLOR=green][B]Golf is a game invented by the same people who think music comes out of bagpipes.[/B][/COLOR]
-
09-16-2004 05:18 PM #35Originally Posted by el tigre
Originally Posted by el tigre
Originally Posted by el tigre
NFL ticket avg - $50.02
NBA ticket avg - $44.68
NHL ticket avg - $44.22
MLB ticket avg - $19.82 (oddly Boston's ticket avg is over $50)
(all prices for 2003-04 season)
For the record, I'm not arguing against you el tigre, I'm just presenting my position with the best information I can. I spend a lot of time researching these things because of my career path into sports journalism....
DanLast edited by broken27; 09-16-2004 at 05:44 PM. Reason: adding ticket price avgs...
[URL=http://www.sportsfiend.ca/]Sportsfiend.ca - Make You Opinion Into News...
-
09-16-2004 06:22 PM #36Originally Posted by Steve Karam
Steve you are a genius....that would make for the best comedy/reality show.....just try to pry me away from the set
-
09-16-2004 07:22 PM #37Originally Posted by broken27
They need to realize that there's only so much money to go around. The NFL and MLB continue to survive because of salary caps and because thier fan base is considerably larger. It's pretty easy to make money when you're drawing 35,000-50,000+ fans per game. The NBA has survived because basketball is played in every corner of the US including Alaska. But even there after their Olympic performance I wouldn't be surprised to see some changes made.
If I were an owner in the WHA, I'd be licking my chops. If the NHL stays out for longer than a year, I can see a lot of players starting to move to the new league and eventually the NHL will fold. More power to the WHA. I'd rather watch hockey that means something anyway.When applying the Rules, you follow them line by line. You don't read between them.
-
09-16-2004 10:16 PM #38Originally Posted by LobWedge
Seriously though, the WHA will benefit from this if it ever gets off the ground. But from what I've seen about it, it will have a cap system from the very begining, making any NHLer who joins it a bit of a hypocrite...
Dan[URL=http://www.sportsfiend.ca/]Sportsfiend.ca - Make You Opinion Into News...
-
09-17-2004 08:31 AM #39
Throughout history, salaries were always the source of conflicts between the NHL and the players.
It all started with Fred "Cyclone" Taylor who signed a contract of 5 250$ in 1910, the NHL adopted a salary cap of 5 000 dollars per team.
In 1953, Jean Béliveau signed a contract paying him 100 000$ for 5 years. At that time, it was the biggest contract in NHL history.
From 100 000 dollars to one million. Bobby Orr had become the first millionaire in the NHL After winning 3 MVP’s, the Bruins offered him a 5 year deal worth 1 000 000$.
It’s in 1990 that the race began. The Blues defensemen Scott Stevens was in the drivers seat when he signed a 4 year, 5 million dollars deal.
In 1994, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier and Stevens were paid over 5 million dollars per seasons.
After that, the sky was the limit. Most players established a standard in salaries in the NHL forcing the owners to spit out millions to keep their teams competitive. Bobby Holik signed for 45 million dollars for 5 years. The problems begin.
Curtis Joseph signed for 8 million per season and only played 92 games. in two years.
Even the enforcers like Bob Boughner signed for 2.3 million last year. Not bad for a player that has 5 points in 54 games.
Something must be done.
MikeStrive for perfection, but never expect it!
-
09-17-2004 09:05 AM #40Big_duckGuestOriginally Posted by broken27
Buffalo Bills (Rich Stadium) Capacity 75,339 X 8 Games = 602712 BIS (Bums in Seats)
Air Canada Centre Capacity 18800 X 41 Games = 770800 BIS.
Each NFL Team make about $ 58 Million in TV Revenue, which almost covers the Salary Cap. NHL TV money wouldn't cover a team payroll if every player on the team only made the league minimium salary. It's time for the players to get real.
Originally Posted by el Tigre
I think it is ridiculous that the players have it both ways a Union and individual Wage Negotiation. If you want to be Unionized then your compensation should be wholly based on what your bargaining unit can negotiate. You don't see PSAC workers bringing in an agent to negotiate a seperate deal.
Originally Posted by el Tigre
... end of my rant
-
09-17-2004 09:25 AM #41
what I find interesting is that the NHLPA is asking for guaranteed contracts and a guaranteed average salary but balk at the idea of the owners actually wanting some sort of guaranteed revenue despite the fact that the owners have ~$300m of their own $ invested in the team and buildings. It's the owners with all the risk on their heads, not the players.
-
09-17-2004 11:14 AM #42Originally Posted by jeffc
The players can NOT lose money by being in the NHL, whereas owners currently can NOT make money by being in the NHL (at least 75%).
Why is it that the players are so insistant and defiant in their stance against a salary cap? Every normal business has an internal salary cap, it's called a payroll budget. As Donh mentioned above, it is laughable that the NHL players bargain collectively as well as individually, and in both cases salaries are affected.
Give me a month, I'll be over it...
Dan[URL=http://www.sportsfiend.ca/]Sportsfiend.ca - Make You Opinion Into News...
-
09-17-2004 10:38 PM #43Originally Posted by broken27
-
09-18-2004 12:29 AM #44Originally Posted by em69
For the record, my first term of employ with CCRA was when you were allowed to defer union dues to charity. I gave my $40 (rate back then) per month to the Humane Society of Ottawa Carleton. When "our" union won their settlement for whatever it is they were striking about, I got a cheque for over $2000. In hindsight it was probably frivolous, but I gave that money to the HS as well. Animals don't sign up to be pets, we force them to be, that was my mentality, and since I was perfectly content with making my contract value salary, I gave away the excess.... Now I have twins, and I wish I had that money back, but I am proud to have done something nice for the cats and dogs and other animals... No remorse, no regret.
Cheers,
Dan[URL=http://www.sportsfiend.ca/]Sportsfiend.ca - Make You Opinion Into News...
-
09-18-2004 09:53 PM #45
We're slightly off topic, but that's not what I was referring to (deferring dues). I work with Indeterminate staff who have waived the right to be represented. They still pay the dues, but they can cross the picket lines as they are "exempt staff", therefore they still get their cheque every week. This way, they are not overly concerned when the Gov goes on strike every two or three years.
You lost me on the pet thing.
-
09-18-2004 09:57 PM #46
Back to hockey...
I coudn't really care if they are locked out for the long term...I'd rather be playing hockey then watching any day. Personally, I think sports athletes are over paid and the fans always suffer to help subsidize their salaries.
-
09-20-2004 12:14 PM #47
I'll be enjoying the upcoming NBA season. I suggest the Ottawa area hockey fans check out the 67s. Plus NFL week #2 is complete tonight. Monday night football's match tonight should be very good.
I wish NHL fans would realize that hockey is not at the same popularity level as MLB, NFL or NBA. Yes its very popular in Canadian circles, but its still the American tv networks that pay the big $ to keep a big league going. It will be a cold day in hell when people accross the USA are willing to switch off the Lakers game to watch hockey.
-
09-20-2004 01:13 PM #48Originally Posted by Sakuraba
Of course, that's my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
OHL games, NFL games, and plenty of movie time with the wife this winter. I agree with the people who predict a mini baby-boom after this lockout...
Dan[URL=http://www.sportsfiend.ca/]Sportsfiend.ca - Make You Opinion Into News...
-
09-20-2004 03:14 PM #49
-
09-20-2004 03:25 PM #50Originally Posted by broken27
Originally Posted by broken27
QMJHL is fun to watch. A lot of scoring and open ice plays.Strive for perfection, but never expect it!
-
09-20-2004 03:52 PM #51
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Posts
- 347
Originally Posted by Sakuraba
Sports that preempt hockey in the U.S. are such things like showing a WNBA game during the Stanley Cup semi - finals.
During the World Championships of Hockey, there were just over 300 thousand TV viewers for the US teams final game. They had over 3 million viewers for the World Championships of Poker.
Hockey is a marginal sport at best in every country except Canada.
-
09-20-2004 08:39 PM #52
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Kanata
- Posts
- 468
Originally Posted by mr shank
-
09-21-2004 07:22 AM #53Big_duckGuestOriginally Posted by powerlefty
Hey PL, didn't you know the US is "The World"; NBA, MLB, and NFL champs all refered to as the "World Champions".
:xxrotflma
-
09-21-2004 07:29 AM #54
yeah yeah yeah
The US is also world loosers of the Ryder Cup once again.I've spent most of my life golfing .... the rest I've just wasted"
www.nationalcapitalgolftour.com
-
09-21-2004 05:42 PM #55
In a year's time you'll be hearing the television network execs saying: "Hockey. What's that? Sure, we'll put it on the tube for you guys, but don't expect us to pay much for it." Net result: quite a few US teams will fold (that will be a good thing, since it will ensure a better quality of players for the teams that survive) and an apathetic public that will insist on quality before being lured back to the rinks or the tube. Hummm. Now that I think about it, we may all be better off if they stay out at least 2 years. In the meantime, we may get to see a few more international events of the type that we just witnessed at the World Cup. Yahooo.
-
09-21-2004 10:36 PM #56
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Kanata
- Posts
- 468
Originally Posted by mpare
-
09-22-2004 10:52 AM #57
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Posts
- 347
Originally Posted by powerlefty
I beleive they still have a contract with ESPN for $60 million.
Apparently with the TV deal that ended this year each team got about 4 million year.
Not exactly big numbers for a professional sport
-
09-22-2004 12:32 PM #58
As announced today...... the 4-on 4 hockey has been suspended until they can make the game interesting.... how pathetic.... :cryin
Sorry guys, but hockey as we know it will never be the same again
-
09-22-2004 06:20 PM #59Originally Posted by The Shtick
-
09-22-2004 09:43 PM #60
I am hopeful that some semblance of the European system will be inducted over here. More local representation per team, more niche-marketing potential, more insightful progressive ideas for rule changes that will bring about the style of game "mpare" refers to "having known".
I have been fortunate enough to have seen RSL (Russian Super League) and other European major league teams conduct both practices and games, and I can honestly say that I'd prefer to pay $50 per seat to watch them play because of their dedication to (and love for) the game. Today's NHL player has become too much of a businessman, and too little of a sportsman.
Dan[URL=http://www.sportsfiend.ca/]Sportsfiend.ca - Make You Opinion Into News...
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)