Larry Brooks: NHLPA plan B - Destroy the NHL

Status
Not open for further replies.

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Thunderstruck said:
Yes, how dare a Sens fan want a league that rewards good management and the ability to draft and develop talent.

Instead I'd rather be completely unrealistic and sell the league down the tubes in the vain hope that our owner is willing to lose money in perpetuity to keep our team together forever.

The NHL should keep the old CBA and Melnyk should order the GM to make him $5m in profit a year. Sell off $10m in salary.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Quick question for Larry Brooks: If the NHL is broken, where will the players play? Is there even a need for a union for a organization that doesn't exist?

We can always count on Larry Brooks to be the voice of reason :shakehead
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Yes, how dare a Sens fan want a league that rewards good management and the ability to draft and develop talent.

We had that and the owners decided to piss it away.

Instead I'd rather be completely unrealistic and sell the league down the tubes in the vain hope that our owner is willing to lose money in perpetuity to keep our team together forever.

Don't be ridiculous. A winning Sens team would have been extremely profitable under the old CBA, regardless of payroll. A losing Sens team would have been broken up to secure marginal profitability. It has nothing to do with the old 'toys for rich boys' canard.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Other Dave said:
We had that and the owners decided to piss it away.



Don't be ridiculous. A winning Sens team would have been extremely profitable under the old CBA, regardless of payroll. A losing Sens team would have been broken up to secure marginal profitability. It has nothing to do with the old 'toys for rich boys' canard.

Sens had a good record last year, how much money did they make?
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Other Dave said:
We had that and the owners decided to piss it away.



Don't be ridiculous. A winning Sens team would have been extremely profitable under the old CBA, regardless of payroll. A losing Sens team would have been broken up to secure marginal profitability. It has nothing to do with the old 'toys for rich boys' canard.
Oh I forgot, you are one of those individuals who inhabit the magical fairyland where the old CBA was a wonderful deal for the owners and perfect in every way.
If you are delusional enough to think that Ottawa could be profitable with a $70M+ payroll, then have fun in fairyland.

PSST...only one problem. The guy who signs the pay checks lives in the real world.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Other Dave said:
Don't be ridiculous. A winning Sens team would have been extremely profitable under the old CBA, regardless of payroll. A losing Sens team would have been broken up to secure marginal profitability. It has nothing to do with the old 'toys for rich boys' canard.

Forbes says otherwise. According to them, the Sens have lost $9.5 million over the last four years (while averaging about 105 points per season). Just wait until they have to start paying Hossa, Chara, Havlat, etc. real money
 

chara

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
894
0
Thunderstruck said:
Oh I forgot, you are one of those individuals who inhabit the magical fairyland where the old CBA was a wonderful deal for the owners and perfect in every way.
If you are delusional enough to think that Ottawa could be profitable with a $70M+ payroll, then have fun in fairyland.

PSST...only one problem. The guy who signs the pay checks lives in the real world.


And there's no secret room in the Corel Centre where Melnyk stashes alls his profits. You're absolutely right.

The NFL and NBA both have caps linked to revenues. What is so special about the NHL that the players believe they don't need one. Perhaps if they were the investors with a lot more financial risk, they would change their tune.
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
Larry's always funny in his desperation. After the NHLPA's December 9th proposal was thrown back in their face, Larry swore the owners would pay. The players were insulted. There was going to be unity like never before. Bettmen had really shot himself in the foot this time.

You can't help but laugh that Brooks keeps reaching for the same failed logic: "THIS time the players will so angry they'll NEVER give in!"

Here's a hint, Larry, it's not about pride. It's about money ... for BOTH sides.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,946
7,649
My question is, why does Brooks have to pedal his agenda with every column he writes. Can't he present a view that at least can be construed as being somwhat objective?

Well... I actually answered my own question being that in no way has Brooks ever shown the ability or motivation to practice good journalism.

it's not his job to be objective, and it's not his job to be a journalist in the sense of presenting just the plain facts for people to decide. i can't understand why people think this is what sports columnists should do...it never has been and never will be their job, they're paid to write their opinions and that is what brooks does.

as for the whole "ordeal"...i think the story up now on tsn's site gets to a bigger part of the real problem...it's not just about who will decide where the cap goes...there are still big issues with arbitration and revenue sharing, etc etc that have not been resolved and even if the two sides agreed upon a cap, a deal would not get done without these other issues being ironed out.
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
Levitate said:
it's not his job to be objective, and it's not his job to be a journalist in the sense of presenting just the plain facts for people to decide. i can't understand why people think this is what sports columnists should do...it never has been and never will be their job, they're paid to write their opinions and that is what brooks does.
That's certainly fair, but his reputation is now and will always be built upon his ability to be objective even while giving his opinion.

Ann Coulter is a conservative columnist.
George Will is a conservative columnist.

One of those is a writer who is very well respected on BOTH sides of the aisle while the other is seen as a hack and a demagogue by everyone other than those who is as rabid as she.

So I agree that it's okay for Larry Brooks to be myopic in his coverage of the labor issue, but he, you, and everyone else should expect that he's going to be perceived as a shill and a hack. And it's right that he should be perceived as such. If he wants to be seen as a writer of genuine merit, he needs to change the way he approaches his work.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,946
7,649
honestly i don't care and don't see what the big deal is. you don't like him, fine, no need to get all high-minded about it and act like you're upholding some kind of journalistic integrity. brooks has written enough stuff that's pissed me off before, and he's written stuff i agree with. there are also plenty of writers who have been very pro-owner throughout this whole thing
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
Levitate said:
honestly i don't care and don't see what the big deal is. you don't like him, fine, no need to get all high-minded about it and act like you're upholding some kind of journalistic integrity.
1. The fact that you're posting on this suggests you DO care, but maybe you're just marking time, so whatever.

2. What's wrong with upholding journalistc integrity? Why is doing that offensive to you?
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
If Melnyk says the Sens can't survive without a cap, I believe him. But I'd rather see no Sens in Ottawa than a travesty.

If Ottawa can't maintain the payroll of Denver or East Rutherford with a winning team, they don't belong in the league. If they can't maintain a winning team, they don't deserve a team with the payroll of Denver or East Rutherford.

The previous CBA is better for Ottawa fans than the current state of the league: no hockey at all. How some folks can delude themselves into thinking that a cancelled season is 'good for the game' long term is beyond comprehension.
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
Forbes says otherwise. According to them, the Sens have lost $9.5 million over the last four years (while averaging about 105 points per season).

According to your source, the Sens appreciated by 23% the same year that Melnyk bought in. That's a $25 million profit in something like half a year - more than enough to justify small (~2 mil) annual operational losses.

Then he decided to piss it all away by throwing in with the cap crowd. I say good. I hope the market continues to punish him for this suicidal business decision.

Just wait until they have to start paying Hossa, Chara, Havlat, etc. real money

If those guys eventually bring a Cup Series to Ottawa, then they deserve real money, and Ottawa would have been able to afford them from playoff revenues (under the expired CBA). If they don't, they are bums who deserve to be traded.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Other Dave said:
If Melnyk says the Sens can't survive without a cap, I believe him. But I'd rather see no Sens in Ottawa than a travesty.
A travesty where all teams face the same tough decisions that the Sens routinely excell at by getting them right the majority of the time. You have a funny understanding of the word travesty.

If Ottawa can't maintain the payroll of Denver or East Rutherford with a winning team, they don't belong in the league. If they can't maintain a winning team, they don't deserve a team with the payroll of Denver or East Rutherford.
The Ottawa market is more than big enough for a team in an NHL with a properly constructed CBA.

The previous CBA is better for Ottawa fans than the current state of the league: no hockey at all.
Nice straw man.
How some folks can delude themselves into thinking that a cancelled season is 'good for the game' long term is beyond comprehension.
Getting player cost under control and bringing the PA to heel are both key ingrediants in securing the long-term health of the league. If it takes a lost season or two and some short-term pain, so be it.

Sorry that you lack the vision to grasp this fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->