pictures of the press conference room for an announcement that never happened

[nyr7andcounting]

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.

Where did I say that? I don't see it anywhere.

They were prepared and willing, that's just about as good as wanting to lose a season...only difference is no owner is going to come out and say it because the NLRB would be all over it. Only reason I would think only some wanted to lose a season is because big markets did want to play, such as Toronto. Other than that almost all the teams had no problem losing a season.

Anyone with common sense can see each sides plan of the last year and anyone can see that the best deal for the owners involved losing a season first.

 

[PecaFan]

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.

Absolutely. But you were saying their fixed costs for this year would be the same as last year, when the league was running. There are far more fixed costs involved in running an international hockey league than in not running one.

What we care about is the fixed costs that are truly fixed, those that apply even when the league isn't running. And there simply aren't that many of them.

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.

Why? What costs do the Rangers have? Some staff members, scouting, some folks to answer the phone, ... Staff levels have been cut everywhere. The rink is long paid for. I doubt they pay rent for the rink, and tax burdens in the US are low for teams. There's almost no operational cost, since they were closed the entire year. Where do you think these massive costs are coming from? What's so expensive in *not* running a business? Laser jet toner and bottled water?

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.

There's not a chance in hell there could have been a profit this year. No, what's really going on here is you think the league is completely lying about their losses. And you continue to hold these contrary opinions in the face of all fact and evidence which points the other way. Even the NHLPA agrees the losses were real. Leagues that are actually making money don't shut for over a year and do irreparable damage to their business.

How can you say I'm waving it around as fact if "I think" clearly means it's an opinion?

Because you don't say "you think". You say it's "********" and people are blind and stupid to believe what all the evidence points to.

 

[WC Handy*]

Where did I say that? I don't see it anywhere.

Here you go:

The NHL never ever ever ever ever intended on there being one puck drop for 2004-2005 and whoever thinks they wanted a season is a fool.

They were prepared and willing, that's just about as good as wanting to lose a season

No,l that's COMPLETELY different. They were prepared and willing because that's what needed to be done to get the league where it needs to be differently. That doesn't mean they WANTED to at all.

Anyone with common sense can see each sides plan of the last year and anyone can see that the best deal for the owners involved losing a season first.

Anyone with common sense would tell you that losing a season was very risky for the owners.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Here you go:.

YOU CAN'T ****ING READ.

No,l that's COMPLETELY different. They were prepared and willing because that's what needed to be done to get the league where it needs to be differently. That doesn't mean they WANTED to at all.

You make no sense. You admit that the owners needed to lose a season to get the deal they wanted and you admit that they were prepared to do it, but you don't think they wanted to? Why would the owners prepare to lose a season if they absolutely didn't want to? And by definition, how could they be willing to lose a season if they didn't want to. You have to want something to be willing to do it. They wanted a deal that they knew was going to take a season to get and they were willing to do it.

Anyone with common sense would tell you that losing a season was very risky for the owners.

Yea having a lockout in the first place was very risky for the owners, but it's what they needed to do in order to get the deal they want.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Absolutely. But you were saying their fixed costs for this year would be the same as last year, when the league was running. There are far more fixed costs involved in running an international hockey league than in not running one.

What we care about is the fixed costs that are truly fixed, those that apply even when the league isn't running. And there simply aren't that many of them.

There are NOT far more fixed costs involved in running a team than when it's not playing. That's the definition of fixed costs. They are the same, operating or not.

Why? What costs do the Rangers have? Some staff members, scouting, some folks to answer the phone, ... Staff levels have been cut everywhere. The rink is long paid for. I doubt they pay rent for the rink, and tax burdens in the US are low for teams. There's almost no operational cost, since they were closed the entire year. Where do you think these massive costs are coming from? What's so expensive in *not* running a business? Laser jet toner and bottled water?

I'd love to know but unfortunetly the owners don't allow their books to be public. There are a lot of fixed costs for every business, it's the reason why businesses operate at a loss...because they lose less than what their fixed costs are.

The Rangers probably spent somewhere around $35M-$40M outside of player costs. How could a team spend so much if some of it isn't fixed? You just have to assume that at least $5M of that are costs that they can't get around, playing or not.

There's not a chance in hell there could have been a profit this year. No, what's really going on here is you think the league is completely lying about their losses. And you continue to hold these contrary opinions in the face of all fact and evidence which points the other way. Even the NHLPA agrees the losses were real. Leagues that are actually making money don't shut for over a year and do irreparable damage to their business.

Where did I say the league was making money? Where did I say the losses weren't real? I said, if they had a good year, the NHL might actually have had an operating profit (considering that, as you claim through Brian Burke, leaguewide fixed costs are anywhere from $150M and up.)

Because you don't say "you think". You say it's "********" and people are blind and stupid to believe what all the evidence points to.

Again, WHAT EVIDENCE? You still have not given any evidence of leaguewide fixed costs and neither has the NHL....so why should I believe the NHL when they say "we lose less by not playing" when most of what the two sides say is almost completely for PR purposes?

 

[CGG]

Can we just say that:

- The NHL as a whole MIGHT have lost less money by not playing than they would have had they played another season under the old CBA

BUT

- There's no way in hell the NHL lost less money by not playing than they would have had they accepted the whole 24% rollback, $49M salary cap proposal and played the season (part of the season)

 

[WC Handy*]

YOU CAN'T ****ING READ.

I can't read?

You specifically said "whoever thinks they wanted a season is a fool".

You can't even read something you wrote.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I can't read?

You specifically said "whoever thinks they wanted a season is a fool".

You can't even read something you wrote.

Seriously, are you Pejorative Slured? If you are I apoligize. If not, seeing as you have 50 posts, you'd do everyone here a favor to stop coming to these boards. Go read it again, you've proven to be a complete idiot twice but everyone gets 3 strikes right?

 

[PecaFan]

You just have to assume that at least $5M of that are costs that they can't get around, playing or not.

Yes, we must. $5 million is a reasonable amount, compatible with the Vancouver data point we know. You agree with my numbers, yet dispute my overall point. The numbers, which we both agree on, total to losing less money by not playing.

You should be backing this, because you're the one who's saying they never wanted to play the season! This is solid evidence supporting your position!

I said, if they had a good year, the NHL might actually have had an operating profit

Which I said was simply hogwash. Revenues are down, tv contracts have expired and not been renewed for the same amounts, player contracts go up a bit each year, there's no way in hell the league could have turned a profit after losing 200+ million last year. Revenue would have had to explode, or expenses drop massively, and there's no way either one could have happened.

The only way your scenario could have come true was if the PA had said "Please cut our salaries by 30%", and signed a CBA last July.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I can't read?

You specifically said "whoever thinks they wanted a season is a fool".

You can't even read something you wrote.

say what you will, the owners estimated it would take this long to get a linkage deal so they knew the season would be lost. They put the "warchest" together etc...they knew it was gone, had no intent on plaiying unless they got linkage which was impossible to do in a half season and they knew that. The NHL owners were near positive the season would be lost if they were to get a linkage deal. It's common sense, there's no getting around it.
It's impossible to get a union as powerful as the NHLPA to go from a free market to a link between salaries and revenues in 5 months so IMO they knew in order to achieve this type of deal which would make there business a guaranteed profit, that a full season would have to be lost and maybe longer. IMO They knew this would happen because the process just takes that long. Whoever expects a powerful union to roll over and die and accept a horrible deal in a few weeks is nuts, especially with there other options to keep making some money available.
I don't buy into the argument that they were ready to play on Feb 16 with a hard cap. IMO, the NHL knew the PA would never accept a deal without other ramifications goig there way. When they met a day after cancellation, the news appeared to me as though the NHL refused to talk about rev sharing etc. I think they planned it out so that $42.5 M looked nice to the media, but beneath it all was horrible revenue sharing and nothing else the players wanted. I don't think the NHL expected there to be a deal then. All the press conference and list of rule changes, I just don't buy into it. I honestly say Goodenow is smart for waiitng it out because a linkage deal with revenue sharing and other things the players want is be better then $42.5M and nothing else for his players. $42.5M looks nice because most of North America looks at a simple number as the deal. As we all know much more goes into what the average salary will be in the next few years. A $30M cap for instance with other things to escalate salaries is better then a $40M with none of those things.

The owners are not out for the good of the game, there out to achieve this linkage deal. Gary is paid to make the owners maximum profits and losing a year and scaring the game still achieves them linkage whcih guarantees profits IMO. It's all about the money as the Mod says. It really is. Sports now sucks because of it. I would really wish the BOG or someone would just wake up and realize lawyers should be banned from the NHL as headpieces.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Yes, we must. $5 million is a reasonable amount, compatible with the Vancouver data point we know. You agree with my numbers, yet dispute my overall point. The numbers, which we both agree on, total to losing less money by not playing.

No no, I said AT LEAST $5M. I believe there are other teams, especially in big markets, that have higher fixed costs than the Canucks. You on the other hand believe the Canucks are the highest spending team in that regard and everyone else is below them.

I don't agree with you, I'm just using your numbers to prove my point because you won't agree with mine. Even if every team spent $5.5M on fixed costs, that's $165M league-wide...not far off from what they lost and maybe even more than they lost depending on who you believe.

You should be backing this, because you're the one who's saying they never wanted to play the season! This is solid evidence supporting your position!

No, that wasn't me, your almost as Pejorative Slured as the other guy. I've said they were prepared and willing to lose a season...and since getting a cap makes them more through franchise values than they would make in operating profit this year, no owner had a problem missing a season.

Which I said was simply hogwash. Revenues are down, tv contracts have expired and not been renewed for the same amounts, player contracts go up a bit each year, there's no way in hell the league could have turned a profit after losing 200+ million last year. Revenue would have had to explode, or expenses drop massively, and there's no way either one could have happened.

The only way your scenario could have come true was if the PA had said "Please cut our salaries by 30%", and signed a CBA last July.

OPERATING PROFIT. Operating profit and profit are two different things. I'm saying the owners would have made an operating profit, because if you take fixed costs out of the picture (which they have to pay either way) than your taking out AT LEAST $165M in expenses. Since the league lost about the same amount as their fixed costs, they probably would have made an operating profit had they played. Which would mean that they really DONT loss less by not playing, it's simply a nice little quote for PR that most of NA believes without even thinking about it.

 

[PecaFan]

No, that wasn't me, your almost as Pejorative Slured as the other guy.

"The NHL never ever ever ever ever intended on there being one puck drop for 2004-2005 and whoever thinks they wanted a season is a fool."
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2784703&postcount=3

You don't even know your own positions.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

"The NHL never ever ever ever ever intended on there being one puck drop for 2004-2005 and whoever thinks they wanted a season is a fool."
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2784703&postcount=3

You don't even know your own positions.

Jesus you ARE as Pejorative Slured as the other guy. 3500+ posts, I thought you would at least have a little more common sense than the other guy.

FOR BOTH OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN TOO STUPID TO FIGURE IT OUT FOR THE LAST PAGE, READ THE ****ING NAME OF THE POSTER WHOSE POST YOU ARE QUOTING ME ON. UNLESS YOU ARE COMPLETELY BLIND, YOU MAY NOTICE THAT ME AND THE OTHER GUY HAVE A DIFFERENT NAME, DIFFERENT ICON AND A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF POSTS.

But anyway, 'we lose less by not playing' is still bs.