From Blueshirt$ to scabshirts...

[Ola]

Brooks have a new pice in THE POST.

In this pice he actually makes allot of sense. The league have a situation with a individual club incomes range from 117 million to 40 million and they want a cap at 37 million with a meaningless revenue sharing plan...

Its so obvious that Bettman goal is to have a enviorment where the top teams can make tons and tons of money while using the small market teams to get leverge.

One also needs to remember that while the Levitt Report is correct(or atleast I belive that it is) it does NOT entierly reflect the reality for all teams. The Dolans for example isn't loosing money on the Rangers like it reports. Mr. Dolans owns the Rangers, Mr. Dolan owns MSGnetwork who owns the local broadcasting rigths for NYR. Can the PA expect that NYR is getting payed a fair sum for its rights in a situation where Mr. Dolan is negotiating with himself? (please don't comment on whats a fair sum for the NYR is... )

Allot of owners have been able to get permission to build arenas at good locations because they own teams from one or two of the four major sport leagues. A modern arena at a central location is a gold mine. And if you add to that a local cable network centering around a NBA&NHL team(160 local sportgames is a great start for a local sportchannel) its more then a goldmine. If someone outthere belives that the 2 billion the owners have pumped into the league the last years have been somekind of welfare you need to think again. There is allot of situations where there are 3-4 parties involved all taking a pice of the pie, however when all of thoose parties is owned by the same owner who gets all pices of the pie except 55% of whats left of the final pice who would go to the players it kind of explains why some owners never hesitated to sign checks to get their teams competetive.

To sum it all up, the owners have the PA where they could get a very good deal. I am not saying that the new CBA doesn't need MAJOR changes from the old one. But right no the owners and Bettman probably could get a deal somewhere in the neighboorhood of a 45 hard cap + some side issues. That would mean that cheap teams could be competetive around 25 million, some could even be contenders at 25-30millon. The fact that the NHL still isn't prepared to start giving the PA offers that one might expect them to accept really pisses me of... This time IMO there is no doubt who really is screwing the fans...

Honestly, is there anyone out there who doesn't belive a deal where a team can be competetive on a regular basis with a payroll of 25-28 million USD isn't fair and worth saving the league from future disaster?

Click to read more...

 

[NYIsles1*]

Brooks have a new pice in THE POST.

In this pice he actually makes allot of sense. The league have a situation with a individual club incomes range from 117 million to 40 million and they want a cap at 37 million with a meaningless revenue sharing plan...

Its so obvious that Bettman goal is to have a enviorment where the top teams can make tons and tons of money while using the small market teams to get leverge.

Kind of sad New York media has so little interest in hockey anymore Brooks is allowed to throw out this bile without other New York writers holding him accountable. Just another problem with the weak hockey media in baseball's largest market.

Outside of Toronto, Vancouver and Minnesota these so called big moneyma kers all lose money, many in modern buildings with true sellouts unlike Msg. No team is coming out of this stoppage making tons of profit which is why revenue sharing is not as easy as Brooks sells it.

I'm not going to say owners did not create a lot of these problems themselves but why should a team spending big and losing money be forced to share revenue at this time until we see how much they actually make or lose under a new system?

One also needs to remember that while the Levitt Report is correct(or atleast I belive that it is) it does NOT entierly reflect the reality for all teams. The Dolans for example isn't loosing money on the Rangers like it reports.

Yes they do, likely even more than on the Levitt report.

Several industry sources besides Levitt claim the Rangers for years have been losing
between 25-40m a season. According to Brooks himself his team only made 85.5 million in revenue and needed a payroll close to over over 80m to generate that much revenue. If Brooks thinks the Rangers will make 17m with a hardcap they must have been losing a lot.

Ranger fans did not watch (60,000 homes per game cable rating) or support teams with payrolls close to 80m or higher, the corporate fans and even the hardcore fan are never going to support a 30-40m dollar team capped with little expectations, especially in the largest baseball market in the country that owns the media and has no interest in hockey. Msg lost baseball so advertisers have no reason to buy the Rangers as part of a deal to advertise on Mets games any longer...

Baseball is where the revenues are, especially in New York with a 200m dollar team.

Maybe Dolan can demand advertisers must purchase time on Ranger games to advertise on Knicks games, but he has little leverage anymore. Yes and Time Warner will likely do all they can to limit Dolan's revenue streams. Dolan has also made enemies of the Mets, Jets, NFL, Time Warner and NYC government, who want to revoke the tax exemption that kept the Rangers from moving to NJ in 1982.

As for the television rights and without Murdoch who got out of his partnership because of all the enemies Dolan has made they also pay out far more in television rights to the Islanders (17m) Devils (8m) than reportedly they bring in themselves and they just gave the Devils a huge increase to keep them from jumping to Time Warner/Comcast.

With the steep overhead, the empty-unsold seats, the horrible television ratings Dolan likely lost a lot more than the 40.9 million he claimed to Levitt, when this work-stoppage ends there will be far fewer revenue streams.

Mr. Dolans owns the Rangers, Mr. Dolan owns MSGnetwork who owns the local broadcasting rigths for NYR. Can the PA expect that NYR is getting payed a fair sum for its rights in a situation where Mr. Dolan is negotiating with himself? (please don't comment on whats a fair sum for the NYR is... )

I would not know what a fair sum would be for a team generating ratings equal to only 60,000 homes for 82 games in 2003-04.

No one forced Dolan to claim he lost that much money. For years he did whatever he wanted and even handed Nylander a contract well above his market value a month before a work-stoppage. Philadelpia, Colorado, Dallas did not claim those losses to Levitt, neither did Detroit.

If these people cannot agree to share revenue why would they all lie about losing money. If Ed Snider's team goes to the seventh game of the conference finals and claims to lose revenue in a modern building why would the Rangers lose 40.9 million?

Cablevision is a political company that does not want to admit failure. They have no obligation to Bettman to make claim they lost money, especailly when they post padded sellouts for games. I think Dolan lost more than he claimed to Levitt and also lied about his seats sold for games which is clear to anyone attending hockey games at Msg.

If the St.Louis Blues who for years have been claiming about 30m in losses in the modern Saavis Center who sellout games (unlike Msg) how can the losses not make sense in a building like Msg with limited luxury boxes.

Maybe it's time to consider if the NHL should continue to operate inside NYC because arena football and MLS do not have a team in the city, they cannot compete with the major sports and neither can hockey.

With an 80m dollar team the Rangers played in obscurity, what's going to happen after a lockout and they have to sell a 40m dollar team against the Yankees?

It's not 1994, things changed a lot since then.

 

[CMUMike]

This lockout is not about spreading the wealth. Indeed, according to the NHL's Feb. 9 model, the league's projected six most profitable franchises — Toronto, Detroit, Dallas, Colorado, Philadelphia and Montreal — would account for 88 percent of the league's regular-season operating profit. That's one-fifth of league accounting for nearly nine-tenths of the profit.

And for this, the league canceled a season? And for this, the league is willing to forever tarnish its brand name by playing next year with lower-tier replacements?

Wait, wait, wait! I thought that the lockout was being run by the "Hardline 8"? Which way is it boys?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

More arm waving from the NHLPA's biggest sycophant. Seriously, he's waving his arms trying to distract you from the fact that the NHLPA has nothing left. This is the last great hurrah for them. They have lost the war on every front and this is the last one they can hope to extract a pound of flesh on. But I'll ask the exact same question here that I posed in another thread where not a single poster had the gumption to answer.

"We all know that the NHL planned on sharing no less than just under $90 million in their revenue sharing plan as outlined in their last CBA offer. A simple question for the pro-pA posters. What was the NHLPA's sharing number in their only offer to date? What was the number THEY presented?"

The answer to that question itself is the final nail in the NHLPA's coffin and proves once and for all that their whole goal has been to wave their arms wildly and get the attention off the real action taking place.

Larry Brooks is nothing but a shuckster like those with the sideshows at the county fair. Deceive, deceive, deceive. Larry's been up there screaming that he's got a "six foot tall man eating chicken" for all to see when in fact he knows that all that is behind the curtain is a "six foot tall man, eating chicken". Larry, and the PA, has been screaming "revenue sharing" at the top of their lungs knowing full well that it will do nothing to the game but guarantee salary escalation and put General Managers and teams behind the eight ball in contract negotiations as those revenue sharing funds become a tangible revenue stream that is documented and has to be spent on salaries. It is not a solution to anything but player greed. And there is why the N HLPA is getting killed in this argument. They have not presented a single solution to the issues that the NHL faces as whole and have done nothing to look after the long term stability of the game. Brooks is a mental midget because he fails to acknowledge the big picture and the results of the solutions offered up. He just keeps on shilling away for the NHLPA without consideration of reality or looking at what the NHLPA has offered up. If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

More arm waving from the NHLPA's biggest sycophant. Seriously, he's waving his arms trying to distract you from the fact that the NHLPA has nothing left. This is the last great hurrah for them. They have lost the war on every front and this is the last one they can hope to extract a pound of flesh on. But I'll ask the exact same question here that I posed in another thread where not a single poster had the gumption to answer.

"We all know that the NHL planned on sharing no less than just under $90 million in their revenue sharing plan as outlined in their last CBA offer. A simple question for the pro-pA posters. What was the NHLPA's sharing number in their only offer to date? What was the number THEY presented?

Don't know which offer you are talking about. I am guessing that by the "only offer to date" you are talking about the December proposal, the only one on either site. In that case the PA proposed "...three alternatives to the NHL with amounts ranging from $65M, to $124M and $190M, respectively." Now that is more than the NHL proposed but not sure how it is split up so really don't know how affective it would have been.

But anyway, this number is useless as this was before the PA accepted a cap. Revenue sharing without a cap is nothing special for the PA, in fact it could actually hurt them. But revenue sharing with a cap is a totally different story and has many many more benefits for the PA. However, I can't find anything about their revenue sharing plan's since they offered a cap. So if it was the December proposal that you are talking about than it's meaningless because that was before a cap was on the table. Revenue sharing doesn't matter much for the PA until you are talking about a cap at mid 40's or lower...and now that the cap is likely to be there revenue sharing takes on a much greater importance.

Larry, and the PA, has been screaming "revenue sharing" at the top of their lungs knowing full well that it will do nothing to the game but guarantee salary escalation and put General Managers and teams behind the eight ball in contract negotiations as those revenue sharing funds become a tangible revenue stream that is documented and has to be spent on salaries. It is not a solution to anything but player greed.

It will cause higher salaries under a $45 million cap, but because of the nature of that increase it won't harm anyone. The teams that will be spending more with revenue sharing than without are going to benefit from it. Plus, no one ever said that the money needs to be spent on player salaries...if small markets want to put it right into their pockets so they can break even or make a profit than they can do that.

I wouldn't call it a solution to player greed but it is something in favor of the players. They are better off with it than without, but considering they are taking a cap in the mid 40's and giving back 1/4 of their salaries I wouldn't call them greedy for wanting some revenues to be put in the hands of teams that can spend it rather than pile into the pockets of big market owners as pure profit that is unaccesable to the players because of the cap.

And the best thing is it HELPS the NHL as well. If their goal really is to sustain 30 healthy franchises, than what better way to do it than for Toronto to share some of their $117 million in revenues with Nashville so that Nashville can afford to pay their players at least half of the $45 million cap? A cap doesn't put money in the pockets of the teams who really need it. What good does it do to cut Toronto's spending to $40 million, put huge profits into their pockets while the teams that need the most help from this lockout are still spending $25 million and breaking even?

They have not presented a single solution to the issues that the NHL faces as whole and have done nothing to look after the long term stability of the game.

No but they've come just as close as the NHL.

 

[Mighty Duck]

Kind of sad New York media has so little interest in hockey anymore Brooks is allowed to throw out this bile without other New York writers holding him accountable. Just another problem with the weak hockey media in baseball's largest market.

Outside of Toronto, Vancouver and Minnesota these so called big moneyma kers all lose money, many in modern buildings with true sellouts unlike Msg. No team is coming out of this stoppage making tons of profit which is why revenue sharing is not as easy as Brooks sells it.

I'm not going to say owners did not create a lot of these problems themselves but why should a team spending big and losing money be forced to share revenue at this time until we see how much they actually make or lose under a new system?


Yes they do, likely even more than on the Levitt report.

Several industry sources besides Levitt claim the Rangers for years have been losing
between 25-40m a season. According to Brooks himself his team only made 85.5 million in revenue and needed a payroll close to over over 80m to generate that much revenue. If Brooks thinks the Rangers will make 17m with a hardcap they must have been losing a lot.

Ranger fans did not watch (60,000 homes per game cable rating) or support teams with payrolls close to 80m or higher, the corporate fans and even the hardcore fan are never going to support a 30-40m dollar team capped with little expectations, especially in the largest baseball market in the country that owns the media and has no interest in hockey. Msg lost baseball so advertisers have no reason to buy the Rangers as part of a deal to advertise on Mets games any longer...

Baseball is where the revenues are, especially in New York with a 200m dollar team.

Maybe Dolan can demand advertisers must purchase time on Ranger games to advertise on Knicks games, but he has little leverage anymore. Yes and Time Warner will likely do all they can to limit Dolan's revenue streams. Dolan has also made enemies of the Mets, Jets, NFL, Time Warner and NYC government, who want to revoke the tax exemption that kept the Rangers from moving to NJ in 1982.

As for the television rights and without Murdoch who got out of his partnership because of all the enemies Dolan has made they also pay out far more in television rights to the Islanders (17m) Devils (8m) than reportedly they bring in themselves and they just gave the Devils a huge increase to keep them from jumping to Time Warner/Comcast.

With the steep overhead, the empty-unsold seats, the horrible television ratings Dolan likely lost a lot more than the 40.9 million he claimed to Levitt, when this work-stoppage ends there will be far fewer revenue streams.


I would not know what a fair sum would be for a team generating ratings equal to only 60,000 homes for 82 games in 2003-04.

No one forced Dolan to claim he lost that much money. For years he did whatever he wanted and even handed Nylander a contract well above his market value a month before a work-stoppage. Philadelpia, Colorado, Dallas did not claim those losses to Levitt, neither did Detroit.

If these people cannot agree to share revenue why would they all lie about losing money. If Ed Snider's team goes to the seventh game of the conference finals and claims to lose revenue in a modern building why would the Rangers lose 40.9 million?

Cablevision is a political company that does not want to admit failure. They have no obligation to Bettman to make claim they lost money, especailly when they post padded sellouts for games. I think Dolan lost more than he claimed to Levitt and also lied about his seats sold for games which is clear to anyone attending hockey games at Msg.

If the St.Louis Blues who for years have been claiming about 30m in losses in the modern Saavis Center who sellout games (unlike Msg) how can the losses not make sense in a building like Msg with limited luxury boxes.

Maybe it's time to consider if the NHL should continue to operate inside NYC because arena football and MLS do not have a team in the city, they cannot compete with the major sports and neither can hockey.

With an 80m dollar team the Rangers played in obscurity, what's going to happen after a lockout and they have to sell a 40m dollar team against the Yankees?

It's not 1994, things changed a lot since then.

The bottom line can be summed up in one sentence. "Until the owners can agree among themselves on how to run the league, and a salary structure, there is no way they are able to get a CBA done."

 

[Olorin]

Kind of sad New York media has so little interest in hockey anymore Brooks is allowed to throw out this bile without other New York writers holding him accountable. Just another problem with the weak hockey media in baseball's largest market.

Outside of Toronto, Vancouver and Minnesota these so called big moneyma kers all lose money, many in modern buildings with true sellouts unlike Msg. No team is coming out of this stoppage making tons of profit which is why revenue sharing is not as easy as Brooks sells it.

I'm not going to say owners did not create a lot of these problems themselves but why should a team spending big and losing money be forced to share revenue at this time until we see how much they actually make or lose under a new system?


Yes they do, likely even more than on the Levitt report.

Several industry sources besides Levitt claim the Rangers for years have been losing
between 25-40m a season. According to Brooks himself his team only made 85.5 million in revenue and needed a payroll close to over over 80m to generate that much revenue. If Brooks thinks the Rangers will make 17m with a hardcap they must have been losing a lot.

Ranger fans did not watch (60,000 homes per game cable rating) or support teams with payrolls close to 80m or higher, the corporate fans and even the hardcore fan are never going to support a 30-40m dollar team capped with little expectations, especially in the largest baseball market in the country that owns the media and has no interest in hockey. Msg lost baseball so advertisers have no reason to buy the Rangers as part of a deal to advertise on Mets games any longer...

Baseball is where the revenues are, especially in New York with a 200m dollar team.

Maybe Dolan can demand advertisers must purchase time on Ranger games to advertise on Knicks games, but he has little leverage anymore. Yes and Time Warner will likely do all they can to limit Dolan's revenue streams. Dolan has also made enemies of the Mets, Jets, NFL, Time Warner and NYC government, who want to revoke the tax exemption that kept the Rangers from moving to NJ in 1982.

As for the television rights and without Murdoch who got out of his partnership because of all the enemies Dolan has made they also pay out far more in television rights to the Islanders (17m) Devils (8m) than reportedly they bring in themselves and they just gave the Devils a huge increase to keep them from jumping to Time Warner/Comcast.

With the steep overhead, the empty-unsold seats, the horrible television ratings Dolan likely lost a lot more than the 40.9 million he claimed to Levitt, when this work-stoppage ends there will be far fewer revenue streams.


I would not know what a fair sum would be for a team generating ratings equal to only 60,000 homes for 82 games in 2003-04.

No one forced Dolan to claim he lost that much money. For years he did whatever he wanted and even handed Nylander a contract well above his market value a month before a work-stoppage. Philadelpia, Colorado, Dallas did not claim those losses to Levitt, neither did Detroit.

If these people cannot agree to share revenue why would they all lie about losing money. If Ed Snider's team goes to the seventh game of the conference finals and claims to lose revenue in a modern building why would the Rangers lose 40.9 million?

Cablevision is a political company that does not want to admit failure. They have no obligation to Bettman to make claim they lost money, especailly when they post padded sellouts for games. I think Dolan lost more than he claimed to Levitt and also lied about his seats sold for games which is clear to anyone attending hockey games at Msg.

If the St.Louis Blues who for years have been claiming about 30m in losses in the modern Saavis Center who sellout games (unlike Msg) how can the losses not make sense in a building like Msg with limited luxury boxes.

Maybe it's time to consider if the NHL should continue to operate inside NYC because arena football and MLS do not have a team in the city, they cannot compete with the major sports and neither can hockey.

With an 80m dollar team the Rangers played in obscurity, what's going to happen after a lockout and they have to sell a 40m dollar team against the Yankees?

It's not 1994, things changed a lot since then.

Firstly, let me preface this by saying I initially found your posts on the subject in question interesting and a good foundation for discussion. However, after reading numerous, essentially recycled, posts it seems clear to me that you continue not for the sake of discussion, but because of bias.

Here's a thread in which you essentially argued the same points key points. I replied with my thoughts, but you either did not see or decided not to answer. If you choose to continue this discussion, I'd ask that you read my post there so I won't have to repeat most of it in this thread.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=2525015#post2525015

Also, how is an 80m dollar payroll relevant in regards to fan support? You seem to insinuate that people were foolish not to trip over themselves to watch the team based on its payroll.

Well, I'm sure you noticed how bad those "teams" were. And seven years of it, it's a wonder the Rangers declined in popularity.

I haven't seen anyone claiming the Rangers will ever be as popular as the Yankees/Mets/etc, and in my opinion they don't need to be in order to carve out their own niche. Do you really think they need to attain that level of popularity to be considered successful? By that logic, a lot of teams from all sports should be contracted for not being at the top of their respective markets.

Your entire argument seems to be that the Rangers have suffered a decline in fan support over a futile seven year period. Truly an earthshattering revelation.

I also think most people have adjusted their calendars accordingly, though your constant, well-intentioned reminders are appreciated.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Yes they do, likely even more than on the Levitt report.

Several industry sources besides Levitt claim the Rangers for years have been losing
between 25-40m a season. .

great, hands up for every one here who thinks we should shut down the league to save the Rangers.

really, who cares if NYR is losing their a$$ each year. thats not only their right, since clearly they have CHOSEN to, but they also deserve it.

so this lock out is to save the Rangers ??

lol.

DR

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If the St.Louis Blues who for years have been claiming about 30m in losses in the modern Saavis Center who sellout games .

great, hands up for every one here who thinks we should shut down the league to save the Blues.

really, who cares if STL is losing their a$$ each year. thats not only their right, since clearly they have CHOSEN to, but they also deserve it.

so this lock out is to save the Blues ??

lol.

DR

 

[BLONG7]

The bottom line can be summed up in one sentence. "Until the owners can agree among themselves on how to run the league, and a salary structure, there is no way they are able to get a CBA done."

Are you talking about collusion??? I don't think that the PA would go for that...

 

[BLONG7]

great, hands up for every one here who thinks we should shut down the league to save the Rangers.

really, who cares if NYR is losing their a$$ each year. thats not only their right, since clearly they have CHOSEN to, but they also deserve it.

so this lock out is to save the Rangers ??

lol.

DR

good point, not to mention it, but the Rag$ and the Blue$ were two of the teams that really got the fiscal in$anity going...but systemically there are issues that need to be solved that notwithstanding...

 

[NYIsles1*]

Firstly, let me preface this by saying I initially found your posts on the subject in question interesting and a good foundation for discussion. However, after reading numerous, essentially recycled, posts it seems clear to me that you continue not for the sake of discussion, but because of bias.

Respectfully this is not the case at all. When I read someone claiming the Rangers
are making money or they do not believe the Levitt report or their finances, I feel inclined to make my points based upon what I have read or seen, nothing more.

I also repeat the same claims about the Flyers, Wings, Avs and Stars not based on my thoughts/bias or where the teams play but what has been written or said by the people that own those teams or what's been written about their finances.

Here's a thread in which you essentially argued the same points key points. I replied with my thoughts, but you either did not see or decided not to answer. If you choose to continue this discussion, I'd ask that you read my post there so I won't have to repeat most of it in this thread.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=2525015#post2525015

I have no idea if I followed that thread after my last posting, sometimes you can only make so many points and move on. I will read what you wrote after writing this and respond to your post if I have something to add. Hope that's fair.

Also, how is an 80m dollar payroll relevant in regards to fan support? You seem to insinuate that people were foolish not to trip over themselves to watch the team based on its payroll.

In New York the standard for building a team is the Yankees. Either your playing to win a championship every year and brining in all star players or no one cares, this is the NY standard that has been set. The only reason the Mets stayed on the radar is because it's baseball.

The problem for the Rangers is they tried that and still people did not pay attention anyway. The days of the 40m dollar Mets and Yankees ended, baseball became year-round news, which was not the case in the 80's or 90's...

As for your post I did not intend to insinuate anything. What I can say is the Rangers could not sell an 80m dollar product to it's fans that alone should have filled the seats win or lose, which would have happened in any other market in the NHL if they signed those caliber players and added Bure, Jagr and Kovalev in season.

Well, I'm sure you noticed how bad those "teams" were. And seven years of it, it's a wonder the Rangers declined in popularity.

It's not just the Rangers and even during good stretches in those seven years the popularity has struggled. It's hockey here in general. Isles-Rangers used to get three days of hype before a game. Why bother now? There is Yankees-Mets and baseball making news all winter.

Interleague play changed things, New York has larger rivalries now. There is only one fan demographic in NYC that goes to hockey games.

I haven't seen anyone claiming the Rangers will ever be as popular as the Yankees/Mets/etc, and in my opinion they don't need to be in order to carve out their own niche. Do you really think they need to attain that level of popularity to be considered successful? By that logic, a lot of teams from all sports should be contracted for not being at the top of their respective markets.

You just hit on the key word, niche. A team driving up salary in twenty nine markets because they need to spend like the Yankees to even make a niche in their own market is not good for the collective health of the NHL. Detroit does not have a Yankee-like team spending in their market, neither does Philadelphia, Colorado, Dallas, those teams are in much higher standing where they play than hockey can be in NYC, win or lose.

Your entire argument seems to be that the Rangers have suffered a decline in fan support over a futile seven year period. Truly an earthshattering revelation.

Actually I made a lot of arguments on a lot of levels. Finances, popularity, ratings/attendance and the NHL/New York circumstances as to why there are major problems with hockey in this market that I think are going to get worse moving ahead. Why follow DiPietro/Brodeur/Jagr when you can follow the winter meetings or the Yankees next big signing? The media here only bothers to make hockey an issue when there is a Bertuzzi-McSorley like event which they use to justify ignoring hockey.

 

[nyrmessier011]

"Shame on the Garden, whose fans will be forced to pay an exorbitant toll that, under a hard cap, will go directly into Jim Dolan's corporate pockets rather than back into the product"

He couldn't be more right. I'm fed up with Dolan first of all for the passed 5 years, but to know that he and other big market owners wont share there revenues, it makes me sick. This is now a huge issue and I'm SICK that the owners wont share revenues at a real rate, not at this 80 million GARBAGE.

To know that my money is going directly to Dolan and not to the other teams which this lockout was fought for, makes me PISSED OFF as a fan. What the HELL did I miss a full season for??? As a Rangers fan, obviously I don't need this lockout, but I'm happy to fight for teams such as Edmonton to stay in the league. I've missed 82 of my favorite teams games and I don't see a resolution because the league just will not share revenues fairly.

I'm happy to fight for you guys who need this lockout to keep watching your team, but this is getting ridiculous that all I'm going to do is pay near the same price for everything to watch crappy minor leaguers, all while putting most of the money in Dolans pocket and not Melnyk's or Lowe's.

Wait a sec, what am i thinking? I'm not putting a DIME into anything other then real hockey or a good revenue sharing system.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

added Bure, Jagr and Kovalev in season.

.

i suggest the problem is the fact that they added players the likes of the 3 above. 3 of the biggest mercenary, dont give a crap, players in the league.

not only are they loser hockey players, no one in their right mind should pay to watch these dogs.

dr

 

[NYIsles1*]

great, hands up for every one here who thinks we should shut down the league to save the Rangers.

really, who cares if NYR is losing their a$$ each year. thats not only their right, since clearly they have CHOSEN to, but they also deserve it.

so this lock out is to save the Rangers ??

lol.
DR

Actually it's to save the NHL from teams that cannot manage themselves properly, who set a player market that was no longer realistic for this business on the whole.

 

[Olorin]

Respectfully this is not the case at all. When I read someone claiming the Rangers
are making money or they do not believe the Levitt report or their finances, I feel inclined to make my points based upon what I have read or seen, nothing more.

I also repeat the same claims about the Flyers, Wings, Avs and Stars not based on my thoughts/bias or where the teams play but what has been written or said by the people that own those teams or what's been written about their finances.


I have no idea if I followed that thread after my last posting, sometimes you can only make so many points and move on. I will read what you wrote after writing this and respond to your post if I have something to add. Hope that's fair.


In New York the standard for building a team is the Yankees. Either your playing to win a championship every year and brining in all star players or no one cares, the only reason the Mets stayed on the radar is because it's baseball.

The problem for the Rangers is they tried that and still people did not pay attention anyway. The days of the 40m dollar Mets and Yankees ended, baseball became year-round news, which was not the case in the 80's or 90's...

As for your post I did not intend to insinuate anything. What I can say is the Rangers could not sell an 80m dollar product to it's fans that alone should have filled the seats win or lose, which would have happened in any other market in the NHL if they signed those caliber players and added Bure, Jagr and Kovalev in season.


It's not just the Rangers and even during good stretches in those seven years the popularity has struggled. It's hockey here in general. Isles-Rangers used to get three days of hype before a game. Why bother now? There is Yankees-Mets and baseball making news all winter.

Interleague play changed things, New York has larger rivalries now. There is only one fan demographic in NYC that goes to hockey games.


You just hit on the key word, niche. A team driving up salary in twenty nine market because they need to spend like the Yankees to even make a niche in their own market is not good for the collective health of the NHL. Detroit does not have a Yankee-like team spending in their market, neither does Philadelphia, Colorado, Dallas, those teams are in much higher standing in NYC.

The Rangers-Isles-Devils do which is one big reason they cannot compete, combined with a media just not interested in hockey like they used to be. No money in it.


Actually I made a lot of arguments on a lot of levels. Finances, popularity, ratings/attendance and the NHL/New York circumstances as to why there are major problems with hockey in this market that I think are going to get worse moving ahead.

First, thank you for taking the time to respond. I apologize if I misinterpreted you're motivation.

I think that had the 80m dollar product they iced been a successful one things would have been different. As it turns out, it repeatedly failed. After so many years it becomes hard to sell a team every year that is essentially identical to each one that has failed before it.

Look at the progression of players: Skrudland, Keane, Fleury, Kamensky, Quintal, Taylor, Lefebvre, Messier, Malakhov, Lindros, Rucinsky, Bure, Holik, Kasparaitis, Kovalev, Carter, de Vries, Jagr. It's insane. But it tells fans how the team plans on ending its losing streak every year, which is the same as in years past. After a few years people become disillusioned, and rightly so.

I suppose the core of the issue is that until the Rangers have a legitimately contending team there is no way of knowing how much support they'll achieve in the market. I think it's unfair to use the Rangers drought in direct comparison to the rise of baseball. I believe it skews the picture to a certain extent.

You're right, the Rangers should not be in competition with the Yankees/Mets in terms of salary and therefore drive prices up elsewhere. I think the blame for this falls on Dolan/Sather/Smith etc. It's possible to have a successful team in the NHL without making off-the-wall bids for every UFA you come across. Rangers management has been extraordinarily poor over the past 7 years, and IMO the trend has a good chance to continue even further.

 

[NYIsles1*]

I suppose the core of the issue is that until the Rangers have a legitimately contending team there is no way of knowing how much support they'll achieve in the market. I think it's unfair to use the Rangers drought in direct comparison to the rise of baseball. I believe it skews the picture to a certain extent.

I do not think this is about the Rangers or hockey at all here, win or lose.

The Islanders are getting half the television ratings they did when they were in last place for seven years which is now equal to the same 60,000 homes the Ranger now get. I think there were simply some basic changes in the sports dynamic in NYC when the Yankees kept winning and adding star players.

Folks like to claim the Devils were boring and that's why they did not get much attention when they won. I submit it was more about the sports market here today which does not allow casual fans to become interested n hockey over six months combined with a overall product that is more boring and more European than it used to be. We do not read or identify with our players as we used to, why follow them?

Note-I think the European players go out of their way to sell hockey to it's fans, they come here and learn two languages in many cases and conduct themselves with class as gentleman. The media is the problem, not the player..

Most Ranger and Islander fans I knew grew up watching these teams play road games on ch9, that is how hockey built it's fan bases here long ago.

Baseball's rise here has taken attention from other sports here. It's about an enormous base of star players combined with a Yankee-Met-Boston rivalry that changed everything here like no other NHL market with fan and media support driving it. Hockey here is reduced down to it's cult fans with nothing driving it and no reason to drive it.

You're right, the Rangers should not be in competition with the Yankees/Mets in terms of salary and therefore drive prices up elsewhere. I think the blame for this falls on Dolan/Sather/Smith etc. It's possible to have a successful team in the NHL without making off-the-wall bids for every UFA you come across. Rangers management has been extraordinarily poor over the past 7 years, and IMO the trend has a good chance to continue even further.

I can't blame Dolan or Sather/Smith for what were trying to do to win and create interest. Whether hockey likes to admit it or not they are in competition with the other sports being played.

 

[Olorin]

I can't blame Dolan or Sather/Smith for what were trying to do to win and create interest. Whether hockey likes to admit it or not they are in competition with the other sports being played.

I didn't mean hockey is not in competition with other sports, they are. Only that Rangers management shouldn't assume copying the way the Yankees/Mets built their teams equals success. I'm not much of a baseball fan, but it is my understanding that the way teams are built in that sport cohesion is less important than it is in hockey. Therefore, the Yankees can consistently bring in top talent that finds success whereas the Rangers can bring in talent that fails because the chemistry isn't there.