Sunday Articles
- Thread starter John Flyers Fan
- Start date
- Status
Oilers Ent
Registered User
This gem from Larry Brooks, the NHLPA shill.
So it is confirmed, he is an absolute moron. This guy can't see that cancelling an entire season would not hurt the business going forward. Wow! That is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.
So it is confirmed, he is an absolute moron. This guy can't see that cancelling an entire season would not hurt the business going forward. Wow! That is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.
Luc Labelle said:
Nothing surprises me about Brooks anymore. You know he'll "outdo" himself with every passing article. Don't ever think Brooks has hit rock bottom, because you just know the next garbage he writes will be even "better".
Though some of his thoughts in the article are stupid, he brings up an interesting point..
What DOES happen if the NHL sells of season tickets at replacement prices, and the NHLPA decides to let its players play....Many teams would lose ALOT of cash...
What DOES happen if the NHL sells of season tickets at replacement prices, and the NHLPA decides to let its players play....Many teams would lose ALOT of cash...
ArtG
Registered User
not if they have linkage..Drury_Sakic said:Though some of his thoughts in the article are stupid, he brings up an interesting point..
What DOES happen if the NHL sells of season tickets at replacement prices, and the NHLPA decides to let its players play....Many teams would lose ALOT of cash...
if revenue and salaries are linked the league would never lose money..
I'm sure the prices would be conditional on who had crossed, how many, and the status of the lockout.Drury_Sakic said:Though some of his thoughts in the article are stupid, he brings up an interesting point..
What DOES happen if the NHL sells of season tickets at replacement prices, and the NHLPA decides to let its players play....Many teams would lose ALOT of cash...
Baseball had discounted tickets for their replacement teams, but went back to regular price once the strike broke.
ArtG said:
Many of the owners already have linkage between their revenues and their debt. Their debt is often secured by revenues from the teams luxury boxes and sponsorships. If those revenues go down, so does their credit rating and ability to pay.
I thought this was an interesting suggestion for how to win the fans back from Panaccio:
Much better than a free pizza slice.
shveik
Registered User
Luc Labelle said:
Did you consider the following: when the owners said that it would cost them less to cancel the 04/05 season than to play it out, did they include the fact that it would "hurt the business going forward"? And how about the 24% rollback back in December? The bottom line of the Brooks statement is that the two league's positions contradict each other.
More juicy tidbits from Brooks. He really raises some good points. I find it funny how people try to slam his articles because he once proposed their favourite player be traded, without any consideration to the actual pointhe is making.
Like, if the NHL owners are making money and paying off their debts faster, how are they getting worse off. The NHL will be back making money, regardles of any short term restructuring losses. Revenues are projected to go up, not down, that is why they are fighting.
Like, if the NHL owners are making money and paying off their debts faster, how are they getting worse off. The NHL will be back making money, regardles of any short term restructuring losses. Revenues are projected to go up, not down, that is why they are fighting.
An imbedded mole? I wonder who is leaking this to Larry.
First off, either Larry Brooks has some really bad sources or he just makes things up sometimes. I am not saying that is the case with this specific article, but he has been caught out in the past.thinkwild said:
As far as the good points he makes...The league has said they will lose less by not playing than by playing. Lose less. Not make more. There is a difference and it seems to have escaped both Larry and you.
And if revenues are projected to go up, why is the NHLPA so dead set against linkage? And don't give me the old NHLPA whine about trust. The NFL/NFLPA and the NBA/NBAPA have worked out ways to verify revenue and so could the NHL/NHLPA. That is one of the NHLPA's weakest positions.
And I am not sure what Larry is trying to show with the Snider story. If Snider was making nice to Goodenow, it might be a sign of a crack in the owners group. But as long as he thinks Goodenow is the bad guy, he is not a problem for the owners. He may not like being reminded that he could be bought and sold by an owner who favors a cap, but he likes the other side even less. It is sort of a 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' kind of deal.
Could you please post a link to the owners' comment that playing out the balance of the 04/05 season was going to be more costly than cancelling it. I don't ever recall seeing this reported. Which two positions of the league contradict? I don't see any contradiction, from day one the NHL has been saying the best deal to be made was today and the best deal to be made in the future will only be worse. The NHLPA even characterized each NHL offer as being progressively worse. At least the NHL has been true to their word.shveik said:
wazee said:
I think this is misunderstood. I dont tbelive the reason the PA is against linkage is out of fear revenues will go down. If revenues go down, they know they will be getting less money linkage or not. The reaon they are against linkage is because they cant control the revenues they are linked to as they go up.
If player salaries were responsible for all the losses, what are teams losing money now? Debt payment? Or are they accumulating more debt because of the losses?
I agree, I think the players are concerned that the league is being run poorly, and that they have no control over that, which is maybe why they want such a big say in things like changes to the game. They don't trust the league's managing ability, not just their numbers.thinkwild said:
I think that the players are more afraid that the league will be run well with more attention paid to controlling costs which include their salaries. The players had a great old time cashing cheques when the league was run poorly.WHARF1940 said:
Revenue's are going up, when it five years? This league is going to take an unprecedented hit on all fronts for a few years with this work-stoppage ends. It make take five years to get back to pre-lockout revenue's.thinkwild said:
As for Brooks his articles are slammed because his work is not credible. He has proven it many times over the years with even his fellow writers claiming his gossip is false. I can understand his fear (and a few other writers) of an NHL with a cap where he cannot write anymore rumors of the Rangers buying anyone they want. He will actually have to put some actual research into his material. He can also understand if the Rangers were invisible with some of the highest payrolls in NHL history and all those star players how is he ever going to get them any attention in the Yankees 200m market when they can only ice a 30-40m dollar team without those kinds of players? He could care less how much revenue Dolan lost or the league, he wants his high-priced team.
Today was just more bile from Brooks after last's weeks article where he just wanted both sides to get to work. It did not take long for him to go right back to bashing the NHL.
What good points is he raising besides his usual claims of friction between the owners ?
snakepliskin
Registered User
hmmmmm-this is the same larry brooks who recently wrote about peace and putting aside personal differences for the good of the game as recently as last week is'nt it? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T =larry brooks--the guy supported his supposedely self-imposed peace mission exactly until he issued his next article for print. bottom line both sides are under increasing pressures to make a deal the longer this goes, as it should be. better leadership on both sides and we would have had a deal before last october. this soap opera of both sides murdering a major sport is hard to watch. -------the owners have proved that they had the will to lose an entire season which they previously said they were willing to do and they have recently said there WILL be hockey this october and i believe them, i also believe more than half the players will tell goodenow to pizz off as they cross the line and hopefully all that make less that 4 mill a year will cross leaving the grossly overpaid in the local bar crying in their beer--i can't believe any group would sit silently by as their general's misjudgements have cost themselves millions. the owners have bit the bullett on this season and if it is as many suggest that these are billionaires who own franchises as hobbies why would they cave now? what is it to them to lose 2 seasons if that's what it takes to get cba they want, not a fair cba but one that they want? these guys are pretty smart businessmen or they would not be where they are at and maybe without the tv contracts they believe that it is better to blow up the league and start from scratch rather than compromise? even though we have lost a season of nhl hockey this "war" has been intriguing to follow and where this road ends is anybody's guess unless one side or the other caves, but i bet that if the last proposal the owners put forth were now to be voted on by the players it would pass by a huge margin now that the players know that owners were not willing to cave in to a deadline as goodenow based his strategy on---i think a lot of players are slowly coming to the hard realization that they have union leaders that have made critical mistakes of judgement.
me2
Go ahead foot
IF GARY Bettman has said it once, he has said it dozens of times throughout the lockout. The NHL, the Commissioner of the Owners has repeatedly testified, would lose less money by not playing the 2004-05 season than by playing it. It's become part of the league's mantra.
But if this is true, then why would the NHL be offering less to the players now than it was a year ago? If an overwhelming majority of clubs are in better financial shape today than they were, say, last June, why wouldn't the league's CBA offers to the PA be more generous than they were last summer?
Let's see
Losing $250m/y under old CBA.
Losing $150m/y (wild guess for arguments sake) under no CBA
Therefore they are in better financial shape than when they started the lockout. Brooks is a genius. How could anyone not see that being down another $150m puts them in better financial shape.
. Still its better than being down another $250m.
The NHL is in worse shape than it started the lockout, but that doesn't mean it isn't in better shape than it would have been had it continued the old CBA.
But if this is true, then why would the NHL be offering less to the players now than it was a year ago? If an overwhelming majority of clubs are in better financial shape today than they were, say, last June, why wouldn't the league's CBA offers to the PA be more generous than they were last summer?
Let's see
Losing $250m/y under old CBA.
Losing $150m/y (wild guess for arguments sake) under no CBA
Therefore they are in better financial shape than when they started the lockout. Brooks is a genius. How could anyone not see that being down another $150m puts them in better financial shape.
. Still its better than being down another $250m.The NHL is in worse shape than it started the lockout, but that doesn't mean it isn't in better shape than it would have been had it continued the old CBA.
Huh? What are you saying here? Hockey revenue would be defined in any CBA that included linkage so that is not a problem. If you are saying that the players do not control how the game is marketed, you are correct. The owners offered a partnership-type arrangement for that sort of thing in an earlier offer, but the players are not interested in being partners.thinkwild said:
Are you intentionally being silly here? Obviously the owners have certain expenses that continue...things like staff, scouts, farm teams, leases, debt payments, etc. That money is still being paid out. However, the league as a whole is losing less than they did last year. What part of that statement do you not understand?thinkwild said:
not quite yoda
Registered User
thinkwild said:
You clearly lack understanding of the matter.
No one ever said player salaries are responsible for all the losses. It's just that expenses outweigh the revenues, and player salaries are a big chunk (over 70%) of these expenses. Lowering salaries would lessen the blow.
The reason that teams are still losing money right now is because they continue to have fixed expenses (paying employee services -like GMs and scouts and presidents-, paying bills, etc...). Meanwhile, NO (AS IN ZERO) revenue is coming in from ticket sales or sponsors as they pay their employees.
So yes, they continue to lose money.
For some teams (and I reffer here to MTL inparticular), their main expense right now are taxes on the land they posess (or in other cases keeping up with the rent they must pay due to the deals they have for the use of the building). How is Montreal, who pays in excess of 8M$ a year on property taxes, suppose to make money with no tickets to sell?
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
Hasbro said:
I am sure of the same thing. May even prove to be an incentive to renew. For instance, a letter saying that replacement games, if necessary, would be played at say, $10 - $25 a ticket, but season ticket holders would get to see the games at half that price as a reward for renewing.
your right - trevor linden has said that over and over again - and bob 2 - ps - revenue sharing - nfl since 1961WHARF1940 said:
- Status
