ColoradoHockeyFan
Registered User
Now there's the better example I was hoping we'd see.You're right though, Detroit is a much better example than the Avs, in 2004 with a payroll of 80M they lost 16.4M.
Now there's the better example I was hoping we'd see.You're right though, Detroit is a much better example than the Avs, in 2004 with a payroll of 80M they lost 16.4M.
Well most of that money went towards the hunting/capture of octopi. Ever since Bettman banned Wings fans from throwing them on the ice it's upset the natural predator/prey balance. After the great octopus uprising of '99 in San Diego, Detroit has been charged with thinning the cephalopod herd.That's a lot of pizzas.
Is this directed at me? I have supported a cap from day one. One could argue that the cap "hurt" my team (though I would argue that it just presents new challenges). But I'm not being disingenuous.
I don't embrace losing or revel in mediocrity. I look forward to following my team as they try to excel in whatever system they are faced with.I assumed, wrongly of course, that most fans would prefer a system that helps the team they support. Maybe you are one of those fans that believe in order to be a "true fan" you have to prove yourself by sticking with your team in the bad times as well as good. Then of course you embrace losing and revel in the upcoming mediocrity.
Who doesn't? I look forward to my team trying to achieve that.Me, I prefer to support a team made up of skilled players who play an exciting brand of offensive hockey and entertain me with a winning attitude and record.
We may be, but sports are cyclical, especially in a cap world. Things can change quickly... just think of our team with a stud #1-type d-man added to it.I may be in for a few lean years...LOL
According to some people, in the new NHL it's more like
that will probably get you a lifetime suspension the way calls are being made today
Or third star of the week!The way suspensions are being handed out, I'd say more like $100 fine.
Forget about who wrote the article and just look at the facts yourself. The fact is ticket prices haven't gone down since the lockout. And one of the league's main reasons for the lockout was to make prices more affordable.
Bettman said that's what the fans wanted and that the league owed it to the fans to get an economic system that would allow them to make prices more affordable. He said if the league got a system that gave them economic stability more than a majority of the teams would use that opportunity to lower ticket prices.
What's ridiculous is that the media and some fans at the time believed it. Ticket prices don't depend on player salaries. There are many other variables that have way more of an impact on prices. What's even more ridiculous is that some people are on here denying the owners/Bettman ever said before/during the lockout that being able to lower prices was one of their main motivations for wanting lower player salaries. Come on, if you were remotely paying you'd know it was said many times.
The bottom line is the league told us the right economic system would allow them to have more affordable ticket prices. But today, not even 2 years later, ticker prices aren't lower. So either what they told us was a lie or they didn't get the right economic system. I have a feeling it's the first option and I don't need Larry Brooks to tell me.
Now I can't blame the owners for that. The media shouldn't have allowed Bettman to tell them the ridiculous idea that prices would go down with player salaries. The owners wanted a system that would lower costs and increase franchise values. They got it, good for them. But the benefit of the lockout for the fans was supposed to be lower prices. I didn't believe it would happen then and obviously it hasn't happened since. So what was the benefit for fans? I can't find one.
Myth that doesn't seem to die.And one of the league's main reasons for the lockout was to make prices more affordable.
Well the proof is that 99% of the people who followed the lockout would say the league "won" and got the system they wanted. I don't think the PA got one major part of the CBA in their favor based on where the two sides started negotiations.What proof do you have that the "right economic system" he was refering to is the one we have today? The system we have today is probably more of a compromise between the "right economic system" he was refering to and the economic system the players were willing to tolerate...
I personally don't remember anyone from the NHL stating with absolute certainty that ticket prices would go down, though they did hope prices might come down. The prices in my market (Buffalo) did go down considerably, as did prices in a number of other markets. Nobody with half a brain would expect those prices to stay down forever though...
This lockout was less than 2 years ago. We've only gone through one fiscal year. Inflation etc. need a lot more time than that to have an effect on prices.One thing to consider re ticket prices being "lower" is inflation. If ticket prices are the exact same as they were pre-lockout, then they are "lower" in 2003-04 dollars. When a team does not raise prices in a given year, assuming we're not in some sort of major recession (which we are not), then the tickets have become more affordable by staying at the same price.
I still don't understand why you hate the cap so much.
Forget about who wrote the article and just look at the facts yourself. The fact is ticket prices haven't gone down since the lockout. And one of the league's main reasons for the lockout was to make prices more affordable. .
The bottom line is the league told us the right economic system would allow them to have more affordable ticket prices. But today, not even 2 years later, ticker prices aren't lower. So either what they told us was a lie or they didn't get the right economic system. I have a feeling it's the first option and I don't need Larry Brooks to tell me.
The league said if they got the right system, the system they wanted, than fans would be benefited in most markets. Well they got their system, but we haven't got the benefit.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=246765
The $1.1 million loss (if it was in fact that much) could be explained by the Avs going for the cup and bowwing out in the 2nd round. $1 mill is almost the gate from a playoff game.
When will you people understand that "more affordable" is not the same as "lower ticket prices"??
But hey we still have 2 more than the Canucks will ever have.
Well the proof is that 99% of the people who followed the lockout would say the league "won" and got the system they wanted. I don't think the PA got one major part of the CBA in their favor based on where the two sides started negotiations.
The league said if they got the right system, the system they wanted, than fans would be benefited in most markets. Well they got their system, but we haven't got the benefit.
As far as not remembering weather or not the NHL said ticket prices would be more affordable if they got the CBA they wanted, like I said before that's ridiculous. It was one of Bettman's favorite lines all year. There's no denying it's something the league used to sell it's lockout to the media and fans.
How about UFA age starting at 25? I'd say that's very much in the players' favor.I don't think the PA got one major part of the CBA in their favor based on where the two sides started negotiations.
Brooks is one of them, he's been writing the same article for a few years now.