- Feb 27, 2002
- 2,052
- 1,022
http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2005/02/19/Sports/hockeytalks_resume050220.html
Click on the Tom Harrington video.....
Click on the Tom Harrington video.....
pictures of the press conference room for an announcement that never happened
- Thread starter deathbear
- Start date
- Status
RangerBoy
Dolan sucks!!!
my 56k modem doesn't play it... <_<
****.
well thanks anyway. i guess i can assume what i'm looking for is in that video.
****.
well thanks anyway. i guess i can assume what i'm looking for is in that video.
deathbear said:
its all there in its blood chilling crappyness
Why, WHY,WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!
*ahem, er, aha*
There is NO Crying in hockey!
We don't really know what the meeting was about... it was assumed it was to bring a $45m cap offer to the table, but both sides denied that any "agreement in principle" was reached. no official reason for the meeting was provided to my knowledge, just another negotiating session...Boltsfan2029 said:
Yeah TSN when they had that hockey day had updates, and at one point they said that they had already aranged the room, and called a press conference, but in the next update he said they where dismantling the set.
nyrmessier011
Registered User
PecaFan said:Right. The NHL collectively woke up one day last summer and all thought to themselves "I know, let's all shoot ourselves in the HEAD! I don't have enough challenges in life, my team barely scrapes by right now, let's add some *REAL* challenge! I think we should turn a $2 billion dollar business into a $1.5 billion dollar smoking remnant!".
Geezus. Now I know why so many idiots think they see Elvis at the 7-11.
The owners knew from the beginning of the season that it was going to take the entire season for the players to agree to linkage...and whatta know, it took that long. The owners didn't want to play for $42.5M. I know they offered it, but it was more PR garbage and here's why.
The number of 42.5 was somewhat reasonable, but the league gave absolutly nothing to else to the players. Absolutly no revenue sharing, qualifying offers were garbage etc. The league knew the players would never accpet 42.5 under those circumstances, but they offered it anyway to make themselves look better to the media and the average follower of the lockout who just sees the cap number to determine where the two sides are in negotiations. I talked to my non hockey following friends later that day because the NHL finally got some media coverage so they knew somewhat of the situation. They were dumbfounded why the players wouldn't just come down on there number and negotiate to $45. I had to explain to them that the players were given nothing else and it would be more benificial for them to get a number say at 37 with the other things they wanted.
I'll give Bettman credit on winning the media battle. He's done a nice job but that still doesn't mean he's negotiating fairly.
mackdogs said:
Did you think the players were going to accept linkage right off the bat? The NHL went into the lockout demanding cost certainty and nothing less...simply observing the PA's stance on that issue would tell you that the NHL knew it was going to take all year to get the PA onto linkage. It's that simple.
Owners were willing to lose a season and they have said that in the media numerous times. They wanted linkage, they knew it was probably going to take all year to get it from the PA, and they were willing to lose the season to do that. So in a way the owners never wanted to drop the puck this year.
Scoogs
Registered User
No doubt that they wanted to. But under their terms. If not, then they lose less money anyways..
Scugs said:
Doubt it. You think that the fixed costs of 30 pro sports teams combined is less than what they would have lost by playing (maybe about $200M)? Don't think so.
PecaFan
Registered User
nyr7andcounting said:
Easily. Brian Burke has repeatedly said the Canucks needed to put $5 or $6 million aside to pay for costs this year. And I believe that was Canadian.
PecaFan said:
And even if every team had a low amount of costs, let's say $5.5M, that's still $165M leaguewide.
And that's using $5.5M which I would bet is a pretty low number in comparison with a lot of other teams. Still no doubt in my mind that leaguewide fixed costs are far over $200M and most likely more than the supposed losses the NHL had even in it's worst year.
me2
Go ahead foot
nyr7andcounting said:
1 or 2 years of no hockey and fixed losses will be more than countered holding out until they get a good deal considering the fixed losses aren't much worse (if not better) than playing under a bad CBA.
me2 said:
Maybe, but the point is the good old "we lose less money anyway" is simple ******** and unfortunately some people buy it AND use it as a motive for the lockout.
PecaFan
Registered User
nyr7andcounting said:
You truly are amazing. Handed direct proof that league expenses are around $150 million Canadian, you continue to insist that they're over $200 million US.
Where does this conjecture of "The Canucks are on the low end" come from? There's absolutely zero reason to think that. In fact, it's likely the opposite, as Canadian teams pay *huge* property taxes to the Feds, millions of dollars per year, something the US teams don't have to worry about at all.
I was handed direct proof, are you kidding me?PecaFan said:
I was handed the supposed expenses for ONE TEAM, stated using a source who doesn't even work for that team anymore. On top of that, it was in fact very indirect as there was no link provided.
If you have direct proof of fixed costs for 30 teams, not the supposed fixed costs for one team, than I would love to see it because it would be interesting. (If it's as low as you say it is, than how does Levitt get such an enourmous amount of "other costs" in the Levitt report? I would have thought a lot of that would be leases on arenas and stuff like that)
Until then I realistically haven't been handed any proof at all, much less proof of league-wide fixed costs.
Simply because $5.5M seems like a pretty low amount for a pro sports franchises to spend on fixed costs, don't you think? According to the Levitt report, if these costs are as consistent as you claim they are, than the average team would spend about $25.8M on costs outside of player costs. I would have to guess that for most teams more than 1/5th of that is fixed costs.PecaFan said:
And even if it's accurate for all 30 teams (which it certainly is not) it is still $165M league-wide...not the far off from what these owners supposedly lose while playing.
Not to mention, you have absolutely zero reason to think that the Canucks aren't the low end...as you don't have any proof of other teams costs and barely have any proof of the Canucks costs. But, at least as far as I am concerned $5.5M seems a little low.
PecaFan
Registered User
nyr7andcounting said:
Unfortunately, that's what happens with radio. They say it, it's gone.
No, doesn't seem low to me at all. The Levitt report is expenses *during* a season, we're talking about when there wasn't a season. There are thousands of expenses that weren't incurred this year, compared to a normal season. The staff is down to a skeleton crew, no equipment costs, transportation, energy bills for running the stadium, no food and drink to purchase...
Huh? I just explained why they would be at the high end. Canadian teams have massive tax burdens compared to the US. Also, Canadian teams tend to have privately built arenas, and the debt that comes from that. Outside of that, most all teams will be very close in fixed costs, support staff, scouting, etc.
You dismiss my argument because it's not 100% accurate, in that it's based on one team only and reasonable supposition, which is supported completely by league statements that they will lose less money by not playing this year, in order to rely on your own supposition that consists of *zero* facts, or even a single reason behind it:
You entire argument is "I think the costs this year are over $200 million." Period. And you wave it around as if it were fact.
nyr7andcounting said:
That's a stretch if I've ever heard one. What the owners didn't want to do is play hockey with a system where they're going to lose money.
WC Handy said:
Which part of it is a stretch? Every word in there comes right from the mouths of the respective sides. Simply observing where the two sides started their stances in September, it was pretty obvious that if there was going to be linkage it was going to take at least until the summer to get the players to agree to it. I think that's pretty obvious.
nyr7andcounting said:
Your entire claim that the NHL didn't WANT to play hockey in 2004-05 is a stretch.
Again, I was given the supposed fixed costs for one team. Until you can provide something that states leaguewide fixed costs for ALL 30 teams, no proof has been provided...but to say I was handed direct proof of leaguewide losses is ridiculous.PecaFan said:
FIXED costs. What do you think FIXED costs mean. The teams have costs that they have to pay either way, not playing doesn't exclude them from having to pay it. As you said, the Canucks have about $5M-$6M of these costs and there is no reason to believe that the other 29 teams aren't comparable to that number.PecaFan said:
Okay and I disagree. A team like the Rangers had around $40M in costs outside of player costs last year...I just have to assume that more than 1/8th of that are fixed costs. Neither of us have any proof of where the Canucks fixed costs are related to the other teams. Even if Canadian teams pay more on average I would still have to say that there are some American teams that are over the $5M-$6M the Canucks spend. And consider that pro sports teams can't spend much less than that on fixed costs...do the math and you are going to near $180M-$200M+.PecaFan said:
Your argument isn't even 1% accurate. One team means nothing, those costs have to be repeated in order for you to say the other 29 teams are at or below $5M-$6M.PecaFan said:
And what facts to you have exactly?
I 100% agree with what you say the fixed costs for the Canucks are. In the same way that you assume the other 29 teams spend less, I assume that of the other 29 teams at least a few spend more than the Canucks and the Canadian teams spend just as much. So let's say a leaguwide average of $6Mx30, that equals $180M. That is not far from what the owners claimed to have lost, and let's remember that they aren't completely truthful in what they claim...no one with that much money is. I have the same facts as you do but I believe if the league had played this season that they wouldn't have lost much more then $180M on possibly understated revenues, they maybe would have even lost less depending on how much you believe Forbes..
But neither of us no exactly what the fixed costs are for the other 30 teams. Point is that a lot of what comes out of either side is BS for PR and it's pretty clear that the league could have had an operating profit this year so I hate when people use the 'they lose less by not playing' argument as a justification for the lockout.
How can you say I'm waving it around as fact if "I think" clearly means it's an opinion?PecaFan said:
WC Handy said:
They wanted linkage and said they weren't going to play until they got it, even if it took 2 seasons. On top of that, as many pro-owner people will point out, the deal only gets better for the owners as time goes on. Losing a season would strengthen the owners position. A gag order was put on owners so 95 couldn't happen again. It's pretty clear the owners were both willing and prepared to lose this season...some might even have wanted to lose the season.
nyr7andcounting said:
Funny how a few pages ago you claimed that the NHL wanted to miss a season and now you're saying that they were prepared to and some may have wanted to miss a season.
- Status
