Stan Fischler:The War Is Over

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Brooklyndevil said:
Could it be the honoring of 2004/2005 contracts? Any other guesses?
Probably a lot to do with the extent of the revenue sharing. If you're the Leafs, you wouldn't be too happy with having to give some of your revenue to the Flames/Oilers/Hurricanes/Coyotes/Sabres/whoever either.
 

BobMckenzie

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
343
3
04-05 contracts won't be honored; revenue sharing will be relatively painless because it's likely to come mostly from playoff monies, not regular season revenue. The big boys will have to share the gravy, but not the meat and potatoes.
 

Deebo

Registered User
Jan 28, 2005
8,327
1,822
Toronto
BobMckenzie said:
04-05 contracts won't be honored; revenue sharing will be relatively painless because it's likely to come mostly from playoff monies, not regular season revenue. The big boys will have to share the gravy, but not the meat and potatoes.
so if a team like toronto or philly fails to make the playoffs, would they get some of the playoff revenue from the smaller clubs?

or does the revenue sharing only go one way?
 

BobMckenzie

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
343
3
Deebo said:
so if a team like toronto or philly fails to make the playoffs, would they get some of the playoff revenue from the smaller clubs?

or does the revenue sharing only go one way?

more often than not, one way. wealthy teams won't be entitled to receive, only give...no details obviously, but big boys will be able to protect the meat and potatoes and only have to share the gravy.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
BobMckenzie said:
more often than not, one way. wealthy teams won't be entitled to receive, only give...no details obviously, but big boys will be able to protect the meat and potatoes and only have to share the gravy.

Nice analogy. I think that is very applicable. So I would like you to clarify something that has been on going in another thread. There will be revenue sharing and Nick Kypreos was confused (it probably doesn't take much) when he reported that there would be no revenue sharing, correct?

Also, I'm wondering when you are going to write a tell all book about the hockey broadcasting business? I can imagine that there have been many times when you walk off set, go to your dressing room and bang your head against the wall after being subjected to and explaining the flaws in the ravings of some of the mental midgets out there (Strachan, Kypreos, Healey, etc.). When can we expect the expose on the lockout and the media frezy/whorefest that we've seen the past year?
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
The Iconoclast said:
Nice analogy. I think that is very applicable. So I would like you to clarify something that has been on going in another thread. There will be revenue sharing and Nick Kypreos was confused (it probably doesn't take much) when he reported that there would be no revenue sharing, correct?

I'm pretty sure Kypreos said there would be no *tax*, not no revenue sharing. IE, there's not going to be a dollar for dollar tax above $30 million payroll, etc.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
PecaFan said:
I'm pretty sure Kypreos said there would be no *tax*, not no revenue sharing. IE, there's not going to be a dollar for dollar tax above $30 million payroll, etc.

Kypreos knows nothing.
 

blitzkriegs

Registered User
May 26, 2003
13,150
1
Beach & Mtn & Island
Visit site
BobMckenzie said:
After that, the league re-opens for business, but probably in stages (i.e. first few days may be only buyouts allowed, small window to sign 2003 and 2004 draft choices, etc., leading up to the unrestricted free agent frenzy, the draft in early August etc.)

With regard to the stages, would you include the release of the complete game schedule? There hasn't been much 'leaked' about how the NHL will handle this. Reliance on divisional games, conference games, and/or the big west/east coast road trips, etc...

I assume the NHL wants to release this information relatively quickly to help teams make/sell packages. Or do the teams already know this information based on 'x' date of Game 1 & are not permitted to disclose that information.

Thanks for any response.
 

blitzkriegs

Registered User
May 26, 2003
13,150
1
Beach & Mtn & Island
Visit site
BobMckenzie said:
more often than not, one way. wealthy teams won't be entitled to receive, only give...no details obviously, but big boys will be able to protect the meat and potatoes and only have to share the gravy.

That seems like a fair way to share revenue with the large disparity in some markets to limit it to postseason revenue.

Basically, the playoffs usually see sellouts across the board in most arenas (most b/c of NJD, CAR). Granted, there is a huge price/revenue difference by market, but overall the near capacity would appear to reduce the overall disparity that is apparent in regular season attendance figures.
 

Mat

Guest
i hope the players shoot it down
that's be funny
and really get the owners back for all they caused
 

Burke's Evil Spirit

Registered User
Oct 29, 2002
21,373
7,337
San Francisco
PepNCheese said:
Kypreos knows nothing.

You think so? While I find he's not the smartest hockey journalist out there, his sources are impeccable. Fun fact: last year both Alexei Kovalev and Geoff Sanderson got traded near the deadline. In both cases, Kypreos called the player telling them they were traded before their own GM did.
 

Deebo

Registered User
Jan 28, 2005
8,327
1,822
Toronto
Burke's Evil Spirit said:
You think so? While I find he's not the smartest hockey journalist out there, his sources are impeccable. Fun fact: last year both Alexei Kovalev and Geoff Sanderson got traded near the deadline. In both cases, Kypreos called the player telling them they were traded before their own GM did.
i remember him breaking the kasparitis to colarado deal too
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
Mat said:
i hope the players shoot it down
that's be funny
and really get the owners back for all they caused


Yeah, that's be real awesome.

What's be even more funny is if the the next season was cancelled, the owners finally caved, and half the teams folded in the next ten to fifteen years.

That's be a real ****ing hoot.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Timmy said:
Yeah, that's be real awesome.

What's be even more funny is if the the next season was cancelled, the owners finally caved, and half the teams folded in the next ten to fifteen years.
Hold it

Lets not dismiss this so quickly.

Its has some real merit here..
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
The Messenger said:
Hold it

Lets not dismiss this so quickly.

Its has some real merit here..

The fact that it would be funny to lose another season?

I don't think that has much merit at all, unless you're a bigger fan of poker and hot-dog eating contests than NHL hockey.

It has merit to "get the owners back" for all they've caused?

Which owners? All of them? Why is it "funny" to punish a McCaw, who had people running an exciting, profitable club on a budget before the lockout? What did he "cause?"

Or the merits of a status quo, where the league continues to lose more and more money at an unsustainable rate so that corporations look at their Sports and Entertainment Divisions and decide that their hockey team isn't really doing much except dragging down profits, and start offloading them at firesale prices to new owners who may not have the financial means to keep the team afloat?

Please explain the merits of Mat's post that I am, in my cave-dwelling and dimwitted way, missing.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
nomorekids said:
Timmah, as an up and coming young poster, I think it's important that you learn that people like "Mat" are not to be taken seriously.

Oh, I know, which is why I avoided most trolls like el Spungo, but even pro-players have to agree that the players will still be better off taking a deal that gives them 54% of agreed-upon league revenues vs. losing another season.

Knee-jerk reactions to posts that look like they were typed with one's toes are not always possible to restrain.

Knee-jerk reactions to an affirmation of said posts are even more difficult. ;)

I'm pissed this has taken so long, even though I happen to think it was necessary. To suggest that the idea of further delays in order to get "more" has merit sends me into a tailspin reminiscent of Howard Dean....
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Mat said:
i hope the players shoot it down
that's be funny
and really get the owners back for all they caused
Yeah, throw another billion dollars out the window. That'll show'em that the players mean business!
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Timmy said:
The fact that it would be funny to lose another season?

I don't think that has much merit at all, unless you're a bigger fan of poker and hot-dog eating contests than NHL hockey.

It has merit to "get the owners back" for all they've caused?

Which owners? All of them? Why is it "funny" to punish a McCaw, who had people running an exciting, profitable club on a budget before the lockout? What did he "cause?"

Or the merits of a status quo, where the league continues to lose more and more money at an unsustainable rate so that corporations look at their Sports and Entertainment Divisions and decide that their hockey team isn't really doing much except dragging down profits, and start offloading them at firesale prices to new owners who may not have the financial means to keep the team afloat?

Please explain the merits of Mat's post that I am, in my cave-dwelling and dimwitted way, missing.
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->