Brian Burke Claim there is a Big Split on Replacement Players ..

[HockeyCritter]

[...]

That is six holdovers from four seasons ago, or only about 18% of the team remaining. The bottom line is that each and every year you are cheering for replacements, whether you want to admit it or not. Its the nature of the game. You PA folk have to get over it already. Most fans recognize this and have learned to cheer for the team, not the clowns in the jerseys.

Just to pick a nit . . . but there are only THREE players on your list that are still with the Washington Capitals

Halpern
Kolzig
Witt <- Will be a UFA whenever the season starts



Hell, with the roster turn over in the last season, the Caps were practically a replacement team as it was.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Most people do cheer for the jersey, and not the name on the back. There is a rather large difference between replacing Janne Niinimaa with Dan McGillis and then replacing him with Marcus Ragnarsson .... than replacing Jeremy Roenick and Kim Johnsson with Peter White and John Slaney.

Again, is it worth it for long term gain?

I'd like to think that the majority of hockey fans are smart people and being smart people they would put up with "replacements" for a short time to fix the league (which should be more important than keeping “stars†on a roster).

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'd like to think that the majority of hockey fans are smart people and being smart people they would put up with "replacements" for a short time to fix the league (which should be more important than keeping “stars†on a roster).

I'm a season ticket holder and wouldn't spend a cent on watching replacement players. If I'm "forced" to pay for replacement players and threatened with loss of season tickets, I'll let them go.

 

[barnburner]

I imagine that people will watch for the first week or little while and then attendence will drop off. It's one thing to say you'll do it, it's another to spend the time, money, and effort to watch ECHL level hockey in NHL garb

Possibly, but, on the other hand, we might be suprised at how people will react to players busting their butts for 60 minutes, night after night.
I haven't spent a dollar watching the St. Louis Cardinals in the last 2 years, saving my baseball ticket money for the local Frontier League team. Not only is everything cheaper, and more fan friendly - the players really put out a great effort night after night. I've never been to one of their games where I was dissapointed with what I saw. Cannot say the same for the Major Leagues.
I'd much rather watch a bunch of less talented players, busting their rears on the ice, than watch millionaire primma donnas that show up when they want to.

 

[Levitate]

Possibly, but, on the other hand, we might be suprised at how people will react to players busting their butts for 60 minutes, night after night.
I haven't spent a dollar watching the St. Louis Cardinals in the last 2 years, saving my baseball ticket money for the local Frontier League team. Not only is everything cheaper, and more fan friendly - the players really put out a great effort night after night. I've never been to one of their games where I was dissapointed with what I saw. Cannot say the same for the Major Leagues.
I'd much rather watch a bunch of less talented players, busting their rears on the ice, than watch millionaire primma donnas that show up when they want to.

compare attendence between the AHL and the NHL. tell me the owners will be happy playing to less than 10,000 people per game if they go ahead with replacement players

they'll be losing even more money than they would be if they just kept the lockout going for one

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I'm a season ticket holder and wouldn't spend a cent on watching replacement players. If I'm "forced" to pay for replacement players and threatened with loss of season tickets, I'll let them go.

I applaud your stance. I went through the same thing several years ago when Ron Bremner was trying to sell "replacement players" to the public in Calgary. That didn't sell then and I cancelled my season tickets. Don't worry, you won't regret your decision for a second... even when your team actually gets to the Stanley Cup and you weren't there to see it.

 

[signalIInoise]

Again, is it worth it for long term gain?

I'd like to think that the majority of hockey fans are smart people and being smart people they would put up with "replacements" for a short time to fix the league (which should be more important than keeping “stars†on a roster).

I don't think so. Hockey fans are consumers, and consumers expect the name brands they buy to maintain a certain level of quality.

If you buy a 12 pack of Coke, and discover that the cans are filled with tap water, you can damn well bet you'll be asking for your money back, regardless of whether it cost only 25% of normal. Odds are good that at that point you pick up a 12 pack of something else, until you're assured that things are back to normal.

 

[HockeyCritter]

But if getting two bottles of water in your 12-pack means that all future 12-packs are the highest quality for the next ten years, aren't you willing to deal with it?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I applaud your stance. I went through the same thing several years ago when Ron Bremner was trying to sell "replacement players" to the public in Calgary. That didn't sell then and I cancelled my season tickets. Don't worry, you won't regret your decision for a second... even when your team actually gets to the Stanley Cup and you weren't there to see it.

As one of the teams most opposed to using replacement players, and being one of the smartest owners in the business I highly doubt that Snider will force season ticket holders to buy or give up their tickets.

He did't build one of the most successfull organizations in the NHL by being so shortsighted.

 

[HockeyCritter]

compare attendence between the AHL and the NHL. tell me the owners will be happy playing to less than 10,000 people per game if they go ahead with replacement players

they'll be losing even more money than they would be if they just kept the lockout going for one

How so? Fannies in the seats means people will purchase concessions, parking, merchandise, etcetera. Sure they still might lose money, but they might lose less money with replacements . . . and at the very least, this action will show the PA (which is different than the players) that they intend to play under a more economical feasible model.

 

[signalIInoise]

compare attendence between the AHL and the NHL. tell me the owners will be happy playing to less than 10,000 people per game if they go ahead with replacement players

they'll be losing even more money than they would be if they just kept the lockout going for one

Absolutely -- and then, on top of that, once season tickets are sold at 25 cents on the dollar, the PA, could decertify, and old contracts could be enforced -- essentially opening the wound further and bleeding the league of more and more money.

The only way replacements work at all is if the NHL iron-clad commits to a full season of replacements, and I don't think even Jacobs has the stones for that move. A full season would only bleed the already weakened value of the NHL brand.

 

[Levitate]

they still have to pay the replacements (though not much) and then all the people to work the concessions, all the workers in the arenas, operating costs, etc etc etc. and they won't have as many fans and will be charging reduced ticket prices on top of that. no corporate sponsers, merchandise sales will be down, advertising revenue, etc

it costs money to operate a hockey team

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

As one of the teams most opposed to using replacement players, and being one of the smartest owners in the business I highly doubt that Snider will force season ticket holders to buy or give up their tickets.

He did't build one of the most successfull organizations in the NHL by being so shortsighted.

Not to hijack this thread but, Snider is NOT one of the smartest owners around. Having Bobby Clarke as your GM proves you're not that bright. Agreeing to paying John Leclair the contract he did proves you are not that bright. Allowing the Lindros clan to hold the team hostage for years proves you are not too bright. The Flyers are lucky because they happen to be in a market with a natural hockey following and a huge population base to draw from. They are lucky that they have a cable channel that will funnel money into the hockey team. The only difference between the Flyers and the Rangers is on ice success over the past few years, and that is cyclical. Snider is hardly the Nobel laurete you are trying to sell. His market makes him look a lot smarter than he really is.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The Flyers are lucky because they happen to be in a market with a natural hockey following and a huge population base to draw from. They are lucky that they have a cable channel that will funnel money into the hockey team. The only difference between the Flyers and the Rangers is on ice success over the past few years, and that is cyclical. Snider is hardly the Nobel laurete you are trying to sell. His market makes him look a lot smarter than he really is.

I'd love hear your try to explain how Philadelphia is a "market with a natural hockey following"

Lucky to have a cable channel ??? .... Ed Snider started his own cable channel, PRISM in July of 1976, when HBO was about the only cable station around.

Any other incorrect statements you want to make about the Philadelphia hockey market ???

 

[Hockeyfan02]

The league can (and will) force teams to use replacements, if needed. Teams could of course choose to leave the league over the issue, but I doubt any are that opposed to the idea.

If it was 28 in favor and 2 against replacements, I'd agree that 2 teams could be forced in to using replacements. But I don't see how Bettman can force, as Burke said 20 something teams that are against it, to use replacements. He'd be going against the majority of the owners and he's supposed to have the owners best interests in mind. If he sides with let's say the 7 teams in favor of replacement players and if Bettman is the one who most wants replacement players, then he is not acting in their best interests but his best interests. The league has the power, but if it's 2/3rds against replacement, I doubt they'd choose that option.

 

[CGG]

Again, is it worth it for long term gain?

I'd like to think that the majority of hockey fans are smart people and being smart people they would put up with "replacements" for a short time to fix the league (which should be more important than keeping “stars†on a roster).

Long term gain. What is the point of replacements? If the PA was still offering the old CBA, then it might be worth it for "long term gain" to scrap another season or attempt to go the replacement route. But they're offering a cap, the max and min are tied to revenue, the gap between the rich and the Carolinas decreases. What more do they want?

The lockout ends right now if owners can get over their allergies to revenue sharing. A $30-$50 million cap based on $2.1 billion that will adjust if revenues decrease is more than they could have ever hoped to get. Revenue share a little and accept the $30-$50 million range. Revenue share a bit more and you can probably get a $35-$45 million range.

I think a lot of owner support would start to disappear if they actually do inflict replacements on us under the false guise of "making the future of the league better" when there is a perfectly workable and acceptable deal on the table right now. If the lockout continues into the season or Lonny Bohonos and Patrick Lebeau suit up in the NHL this fall, then it's nothing but pure uncontrollable owner greed. And stupididy. Whatever they might gain (in addition to what they've already got) will be more than offset by the loss of fans, support, and the league's dignity.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Conversely, the lockout ends if the PA stops cow towing to the top ten-percent and starts worrying about the other 600 constituents.

The PA has played under a very, very favorable CBA for ten years – good for them. They extracted every last penny from the system, but those days are gone. The money is drying up. Now is the time to swing the pendulum back toward center, heck even past center toward the ownership. Things simply must change; the league cannot operate under a system even remotely resembling the previous CBA. It is odd that the league that can least afford not to play under a capped/taxed economic system is the one that is doing so.

And I think you severely underestimate the resolve of the fans . . . . . they miss their sport, they're annoyed with ownership and the players alike for taking it away from them, they understand changes need to be made, they will do what's necessary to ensure the sport survives . .

 

[Levitate]

it seems to me the players have given to a system that does not resemble the former system in any way...

 

[SENSible1*]

If it was 28 in favor and 2 against replacements, I'd agree that 2 teams could be forced in to using replacements. But I don't see how Bettman can force, as Burke said 20 something teams that are against it, to use replacements. He'd be going against the majority of the owners and he's supposed to have the owners best interests in mind. If he sides with let's say the 7 teams in favor of replacement players and if Bettman is the one who most wants replacement players, then he is not acting in their best interests but his best interests. The league has the power, but if it's 2/3rds against replacement, I doubt they'd choose that option.

Good point, but I was responding to a scenario where a few teams went against the majority.

Bettman would have a difficult time EVER going against the majority, the infamous 8 owner rule notwithstanding. If Bettman pisses off a majority of teams by persuing an agenda, he will be in the unemployment line soon enough.

 

[barnburner]

compare attendence between the AHL and the NHL. tell me the owners will be happy playing to less than 10,000 people per game if they go ahead with replacement players

they'll be losing even more money than they would be if they just kept the lockout going for one

That might be - if - the game was going to stay with replacement players.
By the time the season opens, my guess is that you are going to see lots of
nhl players reporting for work.

 

[Weary]

And I think you severely underestimate the resolve of the fans . . . . . they miss their sport, they're annoyed with ownership and the players alike for taking it away from them, they understand changes need to be made, they will do what's necessary to ensure the sport survives . .

If the fans had any resolve, the NHL would be playing hockey now. Instead, the fans just sit on their hands and complain. The players are organized, the owners are organized, the fans can't be bothered.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I'd love hear your try to explain how Philadelphia is a "market with a natural hockey following"

Lucky to have a cable channel ??? .... Ed Snider started his own cable channel, PRISM in July of 1976, when HBO was about the only cable station around.

Any other incorrect statements you want to make about the Philadelphia hockey market ???

So the northeastern United States is not hockey country? What was Snider thinking? And Snider started his cable network with the intention to broadcast Flyer games? Man, what a visionary! You're right, he IS the smartest man in hockey!

 

[signalIInoise]

But if getting two bottles of water in your 12-pack means that all future 12-packs are the highest quality for the next ten years, aren't you willing to deal with it?

Nope... and neither are most consumers. We're never thankful for the times we aren't screwed -- we're resentful of the times that we are. You never hear the story of the guy who is pleased that his latest can of chili didn't have a severed finger in it -- why? Because he stops buying chili.

In the best of times the NHL has a marginal product... and slapping a sticker on it saying "NEW FORMULA! Now more mediocre!" isn't going to do anything but erode that brand, generate more ill will, and give their loyal consumer an excuse to seek other avenues for their entertainment.

 

[Hoss]

Conversely, the lockout ends if the PA stops cow towing to the top ten-percent and starts worrying about the other 600 constituents.

I cannot agree with this logic. Who is giving up more $$$ by not playing, Chubarov or Modano? Your big earners, in most cases, have also been around the longest and by sitting out already one season and maybe another, find themselves closer to packing it in. If the head of the PA feels his playing days will be finished before this is resolved why would he not push to accept a deal, any deal, to get what he can before it's over?

Under a cap, under a rug, under the sea the best players will be paid the best. Don't expect to see massive salary clawbacks coming from guys like Cujo, the real savings will come from lines 3 & 4, Dmen 5 & 6.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The league can force a team to do anything it wants, including moving or finding new ownership. The NHL teams are franchises and have obligations to do what the league says, abiding by their franchise agreement. If the league votes for replacement players each team will have to field replacement players or face sanctions (massive fines), be forced to sell the team to other interests, or possible revocation of their charter and termination of the franchise. The league has a lot of power because they are a franchise operation. All of this will be outlined in the franchise agreement, one which each ownership group has signed and agreed to uphold.

Have you seen this franchise agreement, and if so, which clause states "we can force you to use whatever players we want?"

Cal Nichols said he would suspend operations for the Edmonton Oilers, if the league did not get a salary cap. Was he talking out of his arse too? Or is it not conceivable that some team could suspend operations as well, rather than use replacement players?