If the PA wants anyone to take them seriously..

[John Flyers Fan]

I think you're confusing the issue somewhat. Pronger, Sundin and guys of that age and salary likely will never recover all that they will lose this year. But the question instead should be how much of what they lose this year will they recover. If the system stays as is, they probably won't make it all back, but they can make millions more than they would under a cap.
Sundin is 34 this month and probably has at least four more years of hockey ahead of him. Whether those years are played under a cap or not will make a difference to him financially.
Pronger is 30 and, if I'm not mistaken, will be eligible for free agency next year. Whether he plays in a capped NHL can make the difference between a $9 million/year contract and a $6 million/year contract.
So, to say these guys are all acting selflessly and have nothing to gain by winning this labor battle is simply not true.

They'll make more in upcoming years without a cap than with, but chances are not enough to make up for what they're willing to sacrifice this year.

 

[buce]

What it actually shows is that they aren't fighting for themselves, but for the young players ... the Crosby's, Carter's, and Phaneuf's of this world.

The players actually beleieve in this cause and think of the players before them the sacrificed, and feel like they should do the same.

Oh my God, I can't believe this quote. These players are worried about the next generation of players and are concerned about the past players? Are you kidding me? The NHLPA will sell out the next generation and their mothers if it meant more money for them. They agreed to the entry level contracts the last time out that basically capped those players. How did that help the next generation. I don't see how killing the golden goose will help the next generation. What a bunch of garbage. If they were so concerned about the old timers, why not heed their advice and take the cap. Guys who sacrificed? You mean like Jean Beliveau? Well he has personally said that the players should take the cap and get back to playing hockey. The NHLPA thinks only of themselves. Not the last generation or the next. Anyone who thinks that, is more delusional than Chris Chelios.

 

[vanlady]

I'm curious ... what empirical data are you basing this upon? You're projecting a 29 to 35 percet drop in revenues. How do you arrive at this figure? What facts support this?

Before you answer, here are some facts to consider:

- NHL attendance rose immediately after the 1994 lockout and continued to go up for the next two seasons
- MLB attendance was down 20 percent in the year after its 1994 strike, then 15 percent by 1996
- NFL attendance fell 15 percent after its 1987 strike
- NBA attendance fell 2.2 percent after its lockout, though that's as attributable to the retirement of Michael Jordan - who sold out everywhere - as fan apathy.

Even in the MLB worst-case scenario, a 35 percent decline seems unlikely. Moreover, at leats one expert on this very topic believes that the NHL won't suffer a similar fate.

"Because of the makeup of the NHL fan base, the league is less volatile than others when work stoppages occur," said Paul Swangard, managing director of the University of Oregon's Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, which recently studied NHL attendance data before and after its last work stoppage. "Baseball lives and breathes off the casual fan that hockey just doesn't have."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1968768&type=story

You seem to have facts that have no basis.

The NBA only got attendace back to pre lockout levels in 2004, 5 years later.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4752194

Here are some facts for you,

http://askmen.com/sports/business_100/107_sports_business.html

You seem to be deluded into thinking that butts in the seats are the only source of income, wrong, merchandising that is down 55%, broadcast rights NBC's deal is only to revenue share and based on the apathy in the US will they see a dime. Local broadcast rights, Fox who controls 20/26 US teams local broadcast rights is now handing out NHL airtime to Arena Football, will that airtime ever come back and how will it impact contracts? Corporate sponsorship, how many of these sponsors have discovered that there dollars are better spent on other iniciatives and start to funnel money away, Telus is a prime example of this thinking. Shall I go on?

The reality is in MLB revenues went from 32 million in profits before the lockout to over 300 million in losses the season following. The NBA increased it's revenues by 1.1 billion however, most of those monies came from overseas TV deals, which the NHL already has. In the last 2 years the NBA has seen there revenues drop by 15%.

There are absolutely no guarentees that revenues will remain even remotely close to what they have been. Are you willing to guarentee it?????

 

[leaflover]

The NHLPA thinks only of themselves.

Unlike the owners that have only the interests of us fans in mind. :lol

 

[CarlRacki]

They'll make more in upcoming years without a cap than with, but chances are not enough to make up for what they're willing to sacrifice this year.

Well, let's take the Pronger example. If by foregoing his $10 million this year he gets a five-year, $45 million next year rather than five-year, $30 million, then he will indeed come out on top.

Look, I understand what you're saying. Some of these guys may never recover 100 percent of what they're losing this year. But to paint them as martyrs sacrificing themselves and their families' futures for the good of Sidney Crosby and Jeff Carter is way, way off base. These current players have plenty at stake as well.

 

[Steve L*]

What it actually shows is that they aren't fighting for themselves, but for the young players ... the Crosby's, Carter's, and Phaneuf's of this world.

The players actually beleieve in this cause and think of the players before them the sacrificed, and feel like they should do the same.

How come the rookies are always 1st to get the shaft in any CBA?

The players care about noone apart from themselves and their bank balance.

If they cared so much about the younger players, they wouldn have scrapped a season and risked their future living.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

How come the rookies are always 1st to get the shaft in any CBA?

The players care about noone apart from themselves and their bank balance.

If they cared so much about the younger players, they wouldn have scrapped a season and risked their future living.

Limit salaries for three seasons to preserve earning for their remaining decade or more.

Better than being unlimited right off the bat, but each team having a $40 million ceiling.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

For those not believing my post above, refernce the following post:
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2427037&postcount=66

It's already been said better than I could.

 

[CarlRacki]

You seem to have facts that have no basis.

The NBA only got attendace back to pre lockout levels in 2004, 5 years later.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4752194

Here are some facts for you,

http://askmen.com/sports/business_100/107_sports_business.html

You seem to be deluded into thinking that butts in the seats are the only source of income, wrong, merchandising that is down 55%, broadcast rights NBC's deal is only to revenue share and based on the apathy in the US will they see a dime. Local broadcast rights, Fox who controls 20/26 US teams local broadcast rights is now handing out NHL airtime to Arena Football, will that airtime ever come back and how will it impact contracts? Corporate sponsorship, how many of these sponsors have discovered that there dollars are better spent on other iniciatives and start to funnel money away, Telus is a prime example of this thinking. Shall I go on?

The reality is in MLB revenues went from 32 million in profits before the lockout to over 300 million in losses the season following. The NBA increased it's revenues by 1.1 billion however, most of those monies came from overseas TV deals, which the NHL already has. In the last 2 years the NBA has seen there revenues drop by 15%.

There are absolutely no guarentees that revenues will remain even remotely close to what they have been. Are you willing to guarentee it?????

Yes, I'll guarentee (sic) it. My goodness, that's a pointless question.

First, butts in the seat aren't the only source of NHL revenue, but they're by far the most important source. The NHL relies on ticket sales more than any other "major" sport.

My facts come the ESPN story I linked, written by Darren Rovell. I believe that's the same Darren Rovell you were citing as an authority on sports business around here a couple days ago. Maybe not. Maybe there are two of them writing for ESPN.
Regardless, you claim they're not true but offer nothing showing how they're not true. Again, if you're going to state something as fact, back it up with some proof.

All these lost sources of revenue you cite ... give me one fact supporting these claims. You can't because you don't know. Nobody knows. Is it possible? Sure. But it's not a known fact. So stop posting these things as scripture when you have no idea what you're talking about.

The undisputed fact remains that the last NHL lockout had no effect on revenues, other than those resulting from lost games. Attendance went up after the strike and the league landed its largest TV contract ever.

 

[me2]

What it actually shows is that they aren't fighting for themselves, but for the young players ... the Crosby's, Carter's, and Phaneuf's of this world.

The players actually beleieve in this cause and think of the players before them the sacrificed, and feel like they should do the same.

Have any of them asked Crosby or Phanuef if they'd be happy making just $6m/year? Seriously, have they asked them? They could be fighting a war for nothing.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Have any of them asked Crosby or Phanuef if they'd be happy making just $6m/year? Seriously, have they asked them? They could be fighting a war for nothing.

The Pitkanen's, Horton's, Staal's, Fleury's, Heatly's etc. are already in the league and the NHLPA .... they certainly have a voice.

 

[me2]

The Pitkanen's, Horton's, Staal's, Fleury's, Heatly's etc. are already in the league and the NHLPA .... they certainly have a voice.

After reading some of Yzerman's comments about when he was a younger player in the earlier stike/lockout I'm really starting to wonder.

 

[djhn579]

And just look how stupid and hypocritical the owners look for not bargaining in good faith and see how much money they would have received if they reached a good deal for both sides.

What's your definition of bargaining in good faith?

 

[Jester]

Your entitled to your opinion but most of us happen to believe that our opinion does count. You don't have to agree with us. Heck, you don't even have to visit this board if it bothers you that much. Most of us side with the owners for good reason. Common sense, being practical and in touch with reality!

sadly, that it doesn't seem to be the case. if our opinion counted we would have been watching hockey since october.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

I think you're confusing the issue somewhat. Pronger, Sundin and guys of that age and salary likely will never recover all that they will lose this year. But the question instead should be how much of what they lose this year will they recover. If the system stays as is, they probably won't make it all back, but they can make millions more than they would under a cap.
Sundin is 34 this month and probably has at least four more years of hockey ahead of him. Whether those years are played under a cap or not will make a difference to him financially.
Pronger is 30 and, if I'm not mistaken, will be eligible for free agency next year. Whether he plays in a capped NHL can make the difference between a $9 million/year contract and a $6 million/year contract.
So, to say these guys are all acting selflessly and have nothing to gain by winning this labor battle is simply not true.

Finally some common sense. I've been trying to tell guys like Tom this forever.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

They'll make more in upcoming years without a cap than with, but chances are not enough to make up for what they're willing to sacrifice this year.

They are part of a 700+ player union that doesnt look kindly on any player speaking his mind and telling the media what he really believes. Most thought the owners would have caved by now, even Yzerman admitted that he expected the owners to cave by this point. I imagine most of the players felt that way too. If they cancel this season and lose half of next and are still talking tough, then you could have a point. I highly doubt Sundin is thrilled with whats happening now and fully expected the players union to get the NHL off its cap stance so he could make boatloads of cash... more than he could ever make under a cap.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

You seem to have facts that have no basis.

The NBA only got attendace back to pre lockout levels in 2004, 5 years later.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4752194

Here are some facts for you,

http://askmen.com/sports/business_100/107_sports_business.html

You seem to be deluded into thinking that butts in the seats are the only source of income, wrong, merchandising that is down 55%, broadcast rights NBC's deal is only to revenue share and based on the apathy in the US will they see a dime. Local broadcast rights, Fox who controls 20/26 US teams local broadcast rights is now handing out NHL airtime to Arena Football, will that airtime ever come back and how will it impact contracts? Corporate sponsorship, how many of these sponsors have discovered that there dollars are better spent on other iniciatives and start to funnel money away, Telus is a prime example of this thinking. Shall I go on?

The reality is in MLB revenues went from 32 million in profits before the lockout to over 300 million in losses the season following. The NBA increased it's revenues by 1.1 billion however, most of those monies came from overseas TV deals, which the NHL already has. In the last 2 years the NBA has seen there revenues drop by 15%.

There are absolutely no guarentees that revenues will remain even remotely close to what they have been. Are you willing to guarentee it?????

The NHL was at a level where it basically couldn't get any worse.

 

[Trottier]

Your entitled to your opinion but most of us happen to believe that our opinion does count. You don't have to agree with us. Heck, you don't even have to visit this board if it bothers you that much. Most of us side with the owners for good reason. Common sense, being practical and in touch with reality!

Eye, first:

No one here needs anyone else telling them whether or not they should visit this board. So please, give it a break. Perhaps you should worry more about contributing some meaningful posts rather than lecturing anyone about their board "rights".

Second, you are in the majority on this. So what? Does that make you "correct"? Does that mean a contrarian POV should be silent? Such enlightened thinking! How broad-minded!

I disagree with many posters here on this topic. Fortunately, a sizable portion are capable of carrying on a coherent, respectful and engaging debate, as opposed to your patronizing rhetoric, i.e., "You don't have to agree with us..."

Re-read my post before misconstruing the meaning.

I never suggested that your opinion "doesn't count". I suggested that winning over your (fans') favor is not the primary concern of the NHLPA at this moment, nor should it be. Getting an acceptable CBA is.

In all honesty, reading your infantile response, one guesses that you did not comprehend that point.

Truly unfortunate.

 

[vanlady]

Yes, I'll guarentee (sic) it. My goodness, that's a pointless question.

First, butts in the seat aren't the only source of NHL revenue, but they're by far the most source. The NHL relies on ticket sales more than any other "major" sport.

My facts come the ESPN story I linked, written by Darren Rovell. I believe that's the same Darren Rovell you were citing as an authority on sports business around here a couple days ago. Maybe not. Maybe there are two of them writing for ESPN.
Regardless, you claim they're not true but offer nothing showing how they're not true. Again, if you're going to state something as fact, back it up with some proof.

All these lost sources of revenue you cite ... give me one fact supporting these claims. You can't because you don't know. Nobody knows. Is it possible? Sure. But it's not a known fact. So stop posting these things as scripture when you have no idea what you're talking about.

The undisputed fact remains that the last NHL lockout had no effect on revenues, other than those resulting from lost games. Attendance went up after the strike and the league landed its largest TV contract ever.

Funny Rovell seems to be the only one who agrees

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3354424

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3317702

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1105528210104850.xml

This also kind of blow holes in the theory that European players may stay home for at least one season.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=113470

 

[CarlRacki]

Funny Rovell seems to be the only one who agrees

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3354424

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3317702

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1105528210104850.xml

This also kind of blow holes in the theory that European players may stay home for at least one season.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=113470

Do you even read the stories you're posting?

1. Merchandise sales are down when the teams aren't playing. Stunning news. What it proves about shopper habits upon the return of the NHL, I'm not sure.
2. Speculation. The same was said in '94 and proved incorrect.
3. More speculation. Try dealing in facts.
4. Huh? The IIHF President said he hopes players participate in the Olympics and you take that to mean they will remain in Europe for more than a year to do it? That's quite a leap.

 

[vanlady]

Do you even read the stories you're posting?

1. Merchandise sales are down when the teams aren't playing. Stunning news. What it proves about shopper habits upon the return of the NHL, I'm not sure.
2. Speculation. The same was said in '94 and proved incorrect.
3. More speculation. Try dealing in facts.
4. Huh? The IIHF President said he hopes players participate in the Olympics and you take that to mean they will remain in Europe for more than a year to do it? That's quite a leap.

It is all speculation to this point until the CBA is solved, duhhhhh. Funny during MLB lockout they pointed to the NHL saying MLB would recover quickly, it didn't, same for the NBA. To dismiss anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is hypocrytical to the extreme. You provide 1 link I provide 3, and I didn't even provide the links from SBN and CFO magazine simply because they require password access. You might like to dream in a perfect world, I live in one like many experts, that sees dramatic drops in revenue.

As for the Olympics, weren't you one of the ones that laughed when I said the european countries would pay players to stay in europe to play in the Olympics. Well by the looks of things, european players are likey chosing to stay in europe.

 

[CarlRacki]

It is all speculation to this point until the CBA is solved, duhhhhh. Funny during MLB lockout they pointed to the NHL saying MLB would recover quickly, it didn't, same for the NBA. To dismiss anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is hypocrytical to the extreme. You provide 1 link I provide 3, and I didn't even provide the links from SBN and CFO magazine simply because they require password access. You might like to dream in a perfect world, I live in one like many experts, that sees dramatic drops in revenue.

As for the Olympics, weren't you one of the ones that laughed when I said the european countries would pay players to stay in europe to play in the Olympics. Well by the looks of things, european players are likey chosing to stay in europe.

First, people who throw around words like "duhhhhh" shouldn't accuse others of being dismissive. It's hypocritical. To the extreme.
Second, get your facts straight. The MLB labor dispute of '94 was a strike, not a lockout. And it occurred months before the NHL lockout, making it hard for me to believe anyone pointed to the NHL situation when discussing the effects of the MLB strike.
Third, the NBA recovered pretty quickly. A 2.2 percent drop in attendance a year after the league's most popular player ever retires is hardly earth shattering.
Fourth, with links it's quality, not quanity. I don't pretend (like some others ... I won't name names) to know what the economic effects of the lockout on future revenues will be. But I can point to the last time it happened for some guidance and the analysis of someone who analyzes these things for a living. Anything you've offered is guesswork from the likes of Darren Pang, Barry Melrose and a writer who doesn't even use his real name. Maybe they're right. I don't know. Either do you.
Fourth, I don't recall you saying that about the Olympics, but now that I've read it, I am indeed chuckling. Simply because Rene Fasel hopes it happens doesn't make it so. It certainly doesn't make it likely, as you claim. But hey, Fasel can wish in one hand, do you-know-what in the other and see which one gets filled first.

 

[Gary]

Awesome point Eye...The NHL should make it a point to put into the next C.B.A. that during any workstoppage-NHL or NHLPA instituted IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM can you offer your services (As a member and partner in OUR league) to any other employer. You may however A) Practice amongst yourselves B) Play in any game that is'nt Sponsored or Endorsed by anyone/any company... You must only deal with us (The NHL) only because this is a BUSINESS and we're PARTNERS like you said (LMFAO) and so to do this would only create a rift and competition against the league that you're A PART OF...The REAL funny part of this is that players wanting to be partners, yet A) NOT wanting a loss of ANY kind B) NOT assuming any responsibility C) NOT full supporting the league (offering services elsewhere)

 

[Trottier]

Translation:

The owners should mandate that in the future, they will have the right to LOCKOUT players AND at the same time, PROHIBIT the players from seeking other means of income.

Fabulous!

And if they dare seek other work of their choice, we'll send them to the Gulag, eh Comrade?

First Eye, pathetically trying to stifle dissent. Now this, a seemingly serious suggestion that an individual's right to freely seek employment be denied.

You guys would have fit in well in the Politboro, Moscow, circa 1930.

 

[jcab2000]

Translation:

The owners should mandate that in the future, they will have the right to LOCKOUT players AND at the same time, PROHIBIT the players from seeking other means of income.

Fabulous!

And if they dare seek other work of their choice, we'll send them to the Gulag, eh Comrade?

First Eye, pathetically trying to stifle dissent. Now, this, a seemingly serious suggestion that an individual's right to freely seek employment be denied.

You guys would have fit in well in the Politboro, Moscow, circa 1930.

Ah, another "free market" lover.

If the NHL were a true free market, there would be no labor agreement and no NHLPA.