Bettmans plan isnt for strikebreakers - its another year of no hockey.

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What players demands are these? There will NEVER be a cap. Can't think of too many other demands made by the players.

Then you need to do some thinking excercises. Because there are hundreds of potential demands the players could make.
The biggest, of course, being Unrestricted Free Agency at any age.

Of course, the players recognize that things needs to change, which is why they've offered concessions.

Bettman, however, refuses to negotiate.

This guy presided over clutchandgrab hockey, which ruined the game's tempo and entertainment value.
He presided over huge salary increases.
He's let US interest in the game dwindle back to zero.
He overexpanded and looked the other way while owners foolishly spent one-time-only revenues on salaries.
He virtually eliminated fighting, despite the fact that fighting remains popular with those who actually pay money to attend games.
He refused to address the salary issue in the last CBA, even though he saw where salaries were going.
And then he embarked in a game of chicken with NHLers - guys who don't usually back down from a challenge.

And yet, people believe the words that come out of the mouth of this snivelling rat?

Good Lord.

Assume that the owners and Bettman are on the right track. Assume that a $31M cap is what the league needs.

Bettman is still Pejorative Slured if he thinks he can win anywhere near that in one bargainning agreement.

He should take the players' proposal, get a bigger salary reduction, and work on a stringent luxury tax.

Work on that for 3 or 4 years. See if it makes a difference.
If it's not good enough, demand more in 3 or 4 years.

Don't shut down the game and destroy what little interest Americans have in the league.

Whatever your thoughts are, you gotta admit that Bettman has been a failure as NHL Commissioner.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

And if the owners and GM's are incapable of doing a budget and sticking to it, then maybe they deserve all the losses they have.

You guys do not get it. The game is sick partially because of the payroll discrepancies so doing a budget and sticking to it will result in all kinds of defense first attitudes because you cannot afford to employ top talent. I want a cap to level the playing field to some degree. I will grant to those who will bring it up that you can still do well on a budget but you will not do it forever. The stars have to align just right with draft picks, career years and smart free agent moves. I don't care what the players make so long as the game is healthy. Its not healthy and the players are the ones that can do something about it but they choose not to. Fine that is their choice but the owners are not moving. I will wait however long it takes to get players to realize they are not going to get what they want and i'm fine with the owners not budging.

 

[me2]

Then you need to do some thinking excercises. Because there are hundreds of potential demands the players could make.

Maybe you should do some reading comprehension exercises. Again, how many have they made, not how many could they make.

No hard salary cap.

Guaranteed contracts? Since that is already the NHL position its hardly a demand.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The union doesn't need to be destroyed, simply brought to a more realistic understanding of their role in the business.

Don't the owners need a more realistic understanding of the players' role in the business? I think they'll get that understanding if they use replacement players, but I don't understand why they can't understand now.

 

[SENSible1*]

Don't the owners need a more realistic understanding of the players' role in the business? I think they'll get that understanding if they use replacement players, but I don't understand why they can't understand now.

I'm sure the owners understand the players role perfectly and also how the owners actions have helped skew the players view to the misconception that "the players are the game".

I also agree that replacement players would quickly bring the players to a better understanding of their role in the business, but not in the way you imagine.

 

[Pepper]

Costco doesn't seem to be having a problem paying their employees decent wages and they have low prices.

Walmart have a loss? They made almost 60 BILLION dollars last year. Do you really think that paying their employees a decent wage is going to cause Walmart to lose money?

Get your facts straight, revenue is not the same thing as profit. Who cares if your revenues are 60B when your expenses are 61B?

 

[YellHockey*]

Get your facts straight, revenue is not the same thing as profit. Who cares if your revenues are 60B when your expenses are 61B?

It is you who should get your facts straight.

Walmart's profit last fiscal year was almost $60B. Their revenues were well over $250B.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It is you who should get your facts straight.

Walmart's profit last fiscal year was almost $60B. Their revenues were well over $250B.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual

to be fair ... thats gross profit, but not real profit. Net profit was *only* 9b. Lets have a food stamp drive for the Lauries !

dr

 

[Pepper]

It is you who should get your facts straight.

Walmart's profit last fiscal year was almost $60B. Their revenues were well over $250B.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual

You're right, I didn't remember they had grown that big. But their net profit was "only" 9 billion which is actually only 3.6% profit margin, i.e. not much.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Maybe you should do some reading comprehension exercises. Again, how many have they made, not how many could they make.

No hard salary cap.

Guaranteed contracts? Since that is already the NHL position its hardly a demand.

Then what demands are they making?
It's pretty silly to say they are demanding that there not be a salary cap when there currently isn't one and never has been one. It's more reasonable to say the owners are demanding a salary cap.

The players are proposing a luxury tax, revenue sharing, and a 5 percent salary rebate ...

That seems a real offer. SOmething that can be negotiated. Unlike the owners' demands.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I'm sure the owners understand the players role perfectly and also how the owners actions have helped skew the players view to the misconception that "the players are the game".

I'm also agree that replacement players would quickly bring the players to a better understanding of their role in the business, but not in the way you imagine.

How can you realistically think the popularity of the NHL will be the same or more if they use replacement players? Seriously, look at the NFL's numbers from 1987 and think about how much more popular football is than hockey.

You're just not looking at reality. Sure it will be OK in Canada and some US markets, but they if they can't support a 30 team league now, how can they when 2nd rate players are being passed off as major league? Hell, there's alot of teams now using 2nd rate talent now and they don't draw.

I really get a kick out of the arrogance that Bettman has when it comes to this. He thinks people will show up he if tells them to, and its never his fault they don't. It doesn't work like that and I'd like to know why he thinks it does. Have people in Carolina been biding their time waiting for replacment players for 7 years? If they don't show up currently, they're not showing up with minor leaguers no matter how cheap tickets are(and ticket prices will not be reduced much). How the hell is attendance going to increase or stay the same with replcament players?

 

[SENSible1*]

How can you realistically think the popularity of the NHL will be the same or more if they use replacement players?

I don't think that it would be as popular and never claimed it would, especially over the short-term. Long term it could end up being more popular if it remains more affordable.

You're just not looking at reality.

The reality is that the owners are in this for the long term. They are willing to endure a good deal of short term pain to get a favourable long term position.

There is enough talent outside of the NHL to present a product that is fast, entertaining and competitive. As long as it is the best hockey available to the North American consumer, hockey fans will watch, especially with the players representing their favourite teams. Ticket prices can be dropped substantially and those same hockey fans may be able to afford to take their whole family, helping create a new generation of fans. With each year that passes, new talent would enter the league through the draft and more NHLPA members would return to the NHL.

If the NHL wins the legal right to use replacement hockey players, the NHLPA will discover that "hockey players" are essential to the game, but that they don't hold an exclusive hold on the supply of hockey players available. Players come and go, but the NHL remains.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

.

You're just not looking at reality. Sure it will be OK in Canada and some US markets, but they if they can't support a 30 team league now, how can they when 2nd rate players are being passed off as major league? Hell, there's alot of teams now using 2nd rate talent now and they don't draw.

Heck, I dont even think replacement players would be able to play in the Canadian markets. Would the NHL be as stupid as to alienate their strongest fan base?

 

[hockeytown9321]

I think everyone with half a brian knows football is the most popular sport in the US, so lets look at the 1987 NFL season where replacement players were used for weeks four, five and six. Here are team by team averaage attendances vs. 1986. Keep in mind the 1987 numbers include the 12 games that replacements weren't used.

Arizona
1986: 35,548
1987: 27,821
Atlanta
1986: 48,740
1987: 23,727
Cleveland
1986: 72,967
1987: 70,420
Buffalo
1986: 66,477
1987: 54,648
Chicago
1986: 61,936
1987: 57,399
Cincinatti
1986: 54,135
1987: 47,031
Dallas
1986: 58,726
1987: 49,201
Denver
1986: 73,630
1987: 62,339
Detroit
1986: 54,054
1987: 27,251
Green Bay
1986: 50,913
1987: 47,379
Houston
1986: 37,973
1987: 37,125
Indianpolis
1986: 55,317
1987: 54,608
Kansas City
1986: 48,167
1987: 40,288
Miami
1986: 58,411
1987: 56,382
Minnesota
1986: 57,944
1987: 50,387
New England
1986: 60,322
1987: 46,788
New Orleans
1986: 57,951
1987: 60,125
New York Giants
1986: 74,304
1987: 54,054
New York Jets
1986: 65,586
1987: 44,112
L.A. Raiders
1986: 64,526
1987: 43,801
Philadelphia
1986: 58,332
1987: 53,744
Pittsburgh
1986: 51,867
1987: 50,486
San Diego
1986: 51,826
1987: 53,097
Seattle
1986: 61,615
1967: 52,745
San Francisco
1986: 58,792
1987: 56,382
L.A. Rams
1986: 59,285
1987: 47,356
Tampa Bay
1986: 40,081
1987: 43,382
Washington
1986: 54,357
1987: 48,760

NFL Average:
1986: 60,663
1987: 54,315

If averageattendabce was down over 6,000 for the season, I think its fair to say the numbers for the replacemtn players were significantly lower.

The cities that would be most comprable to Canadian cities or Detroit or New York or Boston in hockey decrased the least-Cleveland, Chicago Green Bay, etc. Most everybody else was down a lot.

There were 3 teams that incrased their attendance-New Orleans, Tampa Bay and San Diego. All three had a history to that point of being bad teams. My guess is that the fans of those teams were used to second rate players and thought maybe they could win using replacments.

So my question is how can anyone realistcally expect the NHL, with nowhere near the popularity of the NFL, to maintain its current audience if the use replacement players?

 

[hockeytown9321]

I don't think that it would be as popular and never claimed it would, especially over the short-term. Long term it could end up being more popular if it remains more affordable.


The reality is that the owners are in this for the long term. They are willing to endure a good deal of short term pain to get a favourable long term position.

There is enough talent outside of the NHL to present a product that is fast, entertaining and competitive. As long as it is the best hockey available to the North American consumer, hockey fans will watch, especially with the players representing their favourite teams. Ticket prices can be dropped substantially and those same hockey fans may be able to afford to take their whole family, helping create a new generation of fans. With each year that passes, new talent would enter the league through the draft and more NHLPA members would return to the NHL.

If the NHL wins the legal right to use replacement hockey players, the NHLPA will discover that "hockey players" are essential to the game, but that they don't hold an exclusive hold on the supply of hockey players available. Players come and go, but the NHL remains.

There isn't NHL level talent available outside the NHL. Those with NHL talent(and many without) are in the NHL. You're going to be seeing players worse than the worst now. How can the game improve?

Sure over time the talent level might come back up. But how long will it take? How long can the NHL survive drawing 5,000 people a game and without a TV contract? The owners might be in it for the long term, but the long term isn't going to exist if they go the route they're going.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Heck, I dont even think replacement players would be able to play in the Canadian markets. Would the NHL be as stupid as to alienate their strongest fan base?

If the NHL knows one thing, its aleinating their strongest fans. Most likely the Canadian teams will be moved to Mexcio for the cheap labor.

 

[SENSible1*]

There isn't NHL level talent available outside the NHL. Those with NHL talent(and many without) are in the NHL. You're going to be seeing players worse than the worst now. How can the game improve?

Sure over time the talent level might come back up. But how long will it take? How long can the NHL survive drawing 5,000 people a game and without a TV contract? The owners might be in it for the long term, but the long term isn't going to exist if they go the route they're going.

How many people can tell the difference between NHL talent and close to NHL talent?

How many people would be able to do the same when the close to NHL talent is playing against other close to NHL talent?

How long before the vast majority of NHLPA members, who aren't independantly wealthy, cross the line?

The NHL recently changed the US TV contract where they declined an upfront payment for a % of the revenue. Do you think that happened by accident? The games will be on TV.

Do you really think the NHL won't be broabcast in Canada by the CBC, Sportsnet and TSN? Why would they risk alienating the league in case replacement hockey works?

How can the game improve?

Have you watched much hockey outside of the NHL lately? The entertainment value of the OHL games I've attended often surpasses that in most NHL games. The OHL/QMJHL allstar vs the Russian teams has been excellent, far better than watching NHLers go through the motions as they clutch and grab each other up and down the ice.

NHL hockey is basically crap right now. Suggesting that there is no way to ice a better product, even with slightly less talented players, completely ignores the reality of how good hockey outside the NHL can be and how poor the NHL product has become.

The NHL controls the rules and how those rules are enforced. It won't be difficult to get the game speed back up and add some flow. Cheaper tickets could bring a younger, less affluent and far more vocal/enthusiastic crowd back to the rink, helping create a better atmosphere.

My worries surrounding replacement players has nothing to do with the quality of the product, but mainly surrounding the legalities in the various jurisdiction covered by the NHL.

 

[Winger98]

The NHL controls the rules and how those rules are enforced. It won't be difficult to get the game speed back up and add some flow.

Yeah, that's why the NHL has tried and failed at improving the pace/flow of the game for damn near every season for the past five years. Unless you're willing to buy into some ridiculous conspiracy theory, the NHL would have flipped that switch long ago to make the game more appealing to a wider audience and gun for a far larger TV contract than they had to settle for.

The only hope the replacement player idea has of working is if ticket prices can be slashed to such a ridiculously low level that people will see a game instead of a movie.

 

[hockeytown9321]

How many people can tell the difference between NHL talent and close to NHL talent?

How many people would be able to do the same when the close to NHL talent is playing against other close to NHL talent?

How long before the vast majority of NHLPA members, who aren't independantly wealthy, cross the line?

The NHL recently changed the US TV contract where they declined an upfront payment for a % of the revenue. Do you think that happened by accident? The games will be on TV.

Do you really think the NHL won't be broabcast in Canada by the CBC, Sportsnet and TSN? Why would they risk alienating the league in case replacement hockey works?



Have you watched much hockey outside of the NHL lately? The entertainment value of the OHL games I've attended often surpasses that in most NHL games. The OHL/QMJHL allstar vs the Russian teams has been excellent, far better than watching NHLers go through the motions as they clutch and grab each other up and down the ice.

NHL hockey is basically crap right now. Suggesting that there is no way to ice a better product, even with slightly less talented players, completely ignores the reality of how good hockey outside the NHL can be and how poor the NHL product has become.

The NHL controls the rules and how those rules are enforced. It won't be difficult to get the game speed back up and add some flow. Cheaper tickets could bring a younger, less affluent and far more vocal/enthusiastic crowd back to the rink, helping create a better atmosphere.

My worries surrounding replacement players has nothing to do with the quality of the product, but mainly surrounding the legalities in the various jurisdiction covered by the NHL.

First off, the TV deal with NBC does not give the league a % of revenue, but of profits. Big diference. And the NHL did not decline upfront money. Terms were dictated to them because they had no ther options. A major sport could not have gotten a worse national TV deal. Of course I said that when they did the ABC deal too, so Bettman is capable of exceeding my expectations.

I don't know how many lower level players will cross the line. But I know they're all getting between $5-10,000 a month for the next two years, so they're definitely not going to be starving.

And you're line about people not being able to tell the difference between NHl and non NHl talent goes back to my point about Bettman's arrogance. People can tell and they will not even pay minor league prices to watch minor leaguers pretend to be major leaguers.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The only hope the replacement player idea has of working is if ticket prices can be slashed to such a ridiculously low level that people will see a game instead of a movie.

And when prices are cut so low, the league cannot generate enough revenue to survive, and the cycle starts all over again. Why can't people see this?

 

[SENSible1*]

Yeah, that's why the NHL has tried and failed at improving the pace/flow of the game for damn near every season for the past five years. Unless you're willing to buy into some ridiculous conspiracy theory, the NHL would have flipped that switch long ago to make the game more appealing to a wider audience and gun for a far larger TV contract than they had to settle for.

The only hope the replacement player idea has of working is if ticket prices can be slashed to such a ridiculously low level that people will see a game instead of a movie.

Let's just say that I believe the incentive to speed the game up would be far greater for the NHL in the replacement scenario than it has been for the past 5 years.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Let's just say that I believe the incentive to speed the game up would be far greater for the NHL in the replacement scenario than it has been for the past 5 years.

So they've deliberately let the game become as bad as it is now so that it could improve when replacement players come in? Isn't that negligent? If Bettman had that incentive 10 years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have the problems we do.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

lOL

My worries surrounding replacement players has nothing to do with the quality of the product, but mainly surrounding the legalities in the various jurisdiction covered by the NHL.

Well, you're one DUMBASS consumer.

'Well I dont care how good quality it is, I just want it right now!!!'

 

[Winger98]

Let's just say that I believe the incentive to speed the game up would be far greater for the NHL in the replacement scenario than it has been for the past 5 years.

Says a lot about percieved priorities for the NHL for the past five years.

 

[SENSible1*]

And you're line about people not being able to tell the difference between NHl and non NHl talent goes back to my point about Bettman's arrogance. People can tell and they will not even pay minor league prices to watch minor leaguers pretend to be major leaguers.

Most can't tell the difference and a large number would pay even NHL level prices just to make a point to the NHLPA. Of course, they won't be forced to as ticket prices will be significantly lower.

The games will be televised. Whether the deal is a % of profits or revenue.

And when prices are cut so low, the league cannot generate enough revenue to survive, and the cycle starts all over again. Why can't people see this?

Why can't people see that the owners are willing to sustain short-term losses in order to win a favourable long-term position?

So they've deliberately let the game become as bad as it is now so that it could improve when replacement players come in?

It allowed a far greater degree of competitiveness between poor and rich teams under the former CBA's uneven terms for the league to let the game get slowed down. It also allowed the owners to offer a "new and improved" product with the new CBA, replacement player or not.

It should be pretty obvious by now that the owners had no intention of trying to grow the games revenue only to have to give an increasingly larger % of the revenues to the players and have been planning for this showdown once the players made it clear they wouldn't deal on cost certainty.

SSF,

Please attempt to make your point minus the juvenile insults.