(Hockey) Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pyser · 02-15-2005, 01:18 PM

The players agreed to a $52m cap, and the owners agreed not to tie the cap to league revenue.

This could be it!!!!!! (though espn says they are both still a ways apart....this news is huge)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1991361

Anthony · 02-15-2005, 01:19 PM

i think it's close. just split the difference and play. if the league lets $12million keep the season locked then the NHL should never exist.

Huckleberry · 02-15-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyser

The players agreed to a $52m cap, and the owners agreed not to tie the cap to league revenue.

This could be it!!!!!! (though espn says they are both still a ways apart....this news is huge)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1991361

So what's the point of a cap if it becomes quickly unrelated to actual revenues?

Mr. Wednesday · 02-15-2005, 01:22 PM

If I were to guess, I would guess that the players don't trust their ability to put together a formula that accurately accounts for ownership revenue from secondary sources, so they'd rather make it something that gets bargained.

SirFozzie · 02-15-2005, 01:51 PM

we're not talking about just 12 million, we're talking 12 million per team. that's still a hefty chunk of change

bbor · 02-15-2005, 01:54 PM

Crack in the players armour?

Still too late to have a meaningful season IMHO.

ISiddiqui · 02-15-2005, 01:59 PM

True... but now the players have shown they'll give up their opposition to a hard cap. Great victory for the owners. Maybe they can just have a 30 team playoff

. Maybe make a round robin in each division and then elimination (somewhat like the FIFA World Cup).

Anthony · 02-15-2005, 02:18 PM

what's the point at this juncture? the "champions" will always have a "*" next to their names in the books. no one is gonna take this season's (providing there is one) champion as legit.

at this point - cancel the season - and have something great in place for '05-'06.

Maple Leafs · 02-15-2005, 02:19 PM

A crack in the armor of both sides. The players will now accept a cap, and the owners will now accept a cap with no linkage.

It sure seems like they're too close now to let the season slip away, but as Foz pointed out that $12M adds up to about a billion dollars every three years. It's not peanuts.

rkmsuf · 02-15-2005, 02:21 PM

No way this deal gets done unless there is imputus for a season.

As I said somewhere else, without the line in the sand nothing gets done until probably Jan 06. By then I'd bet several teams fold.

These are the most important 28 games ever for the NHL.

Pyser · 02-15-2005, 02:22 PM

the problem is if they cancel the season, the players will most likely say they once again wont accept a cap, and the owners will want to tie the cap to league revenue.

if it doesnt get done in the next few days, its not getting done for a year.

ISiddiqui · 02-15-2005, 02:25 PM

Yep... that is why you NEED a season. That puts some final goal for these discussions. Without any season at all, the NHL is even more fucked.

Maple Leafs · 02-15-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyser

the problem is if they cancel the season, the players will most likely say they once again wont accept a cap, and the owners will want to tie the cap to league revenue.

I disagree. I don't think you can get that horse back in the barn.

That said, you're right that the odds of a deal being done over the summer are close to zero. Neither side needs to move another inch unless there's a deadline nearing.

Pyser · 02-15-2005, 02:26 PM

dont you think its a little weird that the players absolutely refused a cap for 2 years, then 36 hours away from the league cancelling the season, they cave? the bigger cap, plus the 24% rollback still in effect...if the league still cant come to an agreement, the players will go back to the beginning. im nearly positive of this.

sterlingice · 02-15-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyser

dont you think its a little weird that the players absolutely refused a cap for 2 years, then 36 hours away from the league cancelling the season, they cave? the bigger cap, plus the 24% rollback still in effect...if the league still cant come to an agreement, the players will go back to the beginning. im nearly positive of this.

Two things:
1. Real movement never happens until a deadline because billionaires and millionaires procrastinate just as bad if not worse than the rest of us. It's infuriating, it's frustrating- it takes running a favorite sport into the ground to get them to move, but that's how it works.
2. The NHLPA will be in an even worse bargaining position by the start of next season so they blinked first.

SI

Schmidty · 02-15-2005, 02:41 PM

For as patriotic as most Canadians act ( and I see a TON here in Bellingham), Candian hockey players seem totally UN-patriotic, since their demands would almost totally destroy the NHL in Canada (outside of Toronto, Calgary and maybe Vancouver).

I guess I'm just confused by all of the fake bullshit the Canadian hockey players spew.

SoxWin · 02-15-2005, 04:51 PM

Fake bs like taking a huge paycut and agreeing to a cap?

Schmidty · 02-15-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

Fake bs like taking a huge paycut and agreeing to a cap?

Which would still leave them much better off than they deserve considering the popularity of the sport in the markets where it earns it's cash.

Pumpy Tudors · 02-15-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

what's the point at this juncture? the "champions" will always have a "*" next to their names in the books. no one is gonna take this season's (providing there is one) champion as legit.

at this point - cancel the season - and have something great in place for '05-'06.

You know, I realize that it would only be 28 games, so some subpar team might get home-ice advantage if they go on a good run, or maybe some really good team might be left out of the playoffs because they couldn't get in gear soon enough, but ultimately, I think the champion will be considered legitimate. Yes, it would certainly be different, and I'm not pretending that this season's champion would get as much respect as the last 9 (since the last lockout), but I don't think they'll be considered as "paper champions" only.

Obviously, I don't live in a hockey city, but I haven't read or heard anything in the past 9 years about the 1995 Devils being a less-than-deserving champion just because they won in a shortened season. I know they played more than 28 games in their regular season that year, but unless the Blackhawks or the Penguins end up with the 2005 Cup, I think this year's champ would be "legitimate enough" (for all that's worth).

SackAttack · 02-15-2005, 07:01 PM

Well, the other thing is that some fairly major players are playing overseas, so "sub-par" relative to any other season might be "good enough" this year.

Maple Leafs · 02-15-2005, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Obviously, I don't live in a hockey city, but I haven't read or heard anything in the past 9 years about the 1995 Devils being a less-than-deserving champion just because they won in a shortened season.

Agreed. Just like you don't hear anything about the '99 Spurs title not counting.

Bottom line is as long as the playoff structure is the same, most fans will count it (unless a team they don't like wins it all, of course).

sterlingice · 02-15-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

Fake bs like taking a huge paycut and agreeing to a cap?

Wait, agreeing to a cap? You mean at the 11 11/12ths hour? That's very generous of them and probably had nothing to do with coming to the realization of one's weakened bargaining position.

SI

SoxWin · 02-15-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Which would still leave them much better off than they deserve considering the popularity of the sport in the markets where it earns it's cash.

And who's goddamn fault is it that there are teams in shitty markets?

Did they players make that decision or was it greedy owners and that prick lawyer from new york?

SoxWin · 02-15-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wait, agreeing to a cap? You mean at the 11 11/12ths hour? That's very generous of them and probably had nothing to do with coming to the realization of one's weakened bargaining position.

SI

Yeah, and months after they'd offered a great starting point for negotiation, something the league hasn't, and isn't, interested in.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Cydney · 02-15-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmidty

For as patriotic as most Canadians act ( and I see a TON here in Bellingham), Candian hockey players seem totally UN-patriotic, since their demands would almost totally destroy the NHL in Canada (outside of Toronto, Calgary and maybe Vancouver).

I guess I'm just confused by all of the fake bullshit the Canadian hockey players spew.

Calgary would be one of the first to go, and Vancouver soon after. Toronto and Montreal are the only cities that can really support an NHL franchise without some meaningful changes. Which apparently are not going to be made should there be no linkage...a foolish move on the league's part.

Cydney · 02-15-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

And who's goddamn fault is it that there are teams in shitty markets?

Did they players make that decision or was it greedy owners and that prick lawyer from new york?

I don't think I ever heard a single player complaining about expansion until well after the fact. More jobs and all that. And don't pretend to think that the league could have expanded without the union's approval.

SoxWin · 02-15-2005, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cydney

I don't think I ever heard a single player complaining about expansion until well after the fact. More jobs and all that. And don't pretend to think that the league could have expanded without the union's approval.

Granted, but the fix should be a partnership, not one side hammering it's will down the throat of the other side.

Edmonton would go years before Vancouver. The Canucks have done very well the last few years and made over 20 mil last year. Outside of Alberta, I don't really believe the NHL is in trouble in Canada.

sterlingice · 02-15-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

Yeah, and months after they'd offered a great starting point for negotiation, something the league hasn't, and isn't, interested in.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

I love this. It's like arguing with a "Republicans are evil" or "everything the President does is evil" person. There's absolutely no way to feel bad about your argument because they just bring a dogmatic "I'm right, you're wrong" to the table with a few token non sequitors as fact to back them up.

SI

SoxWin · 02-15-2005, 08:03 PM

lol, I was actually thinking it might be more productive to have a thread about Bush v Kerry, pro life v pro choice, or perhaps a good old fashioned gun law debate......

I honestly don't believe the league was ever interested in a serious negotiation, but we're never going to agree so to hell with it

Maple Leafs · 02-15-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

lol, I was actually thinking it might be more productive to have a thread about Bush v Kerry, pro life v pro choice, or perhaps a good old fashioned gun law debate......

Or we could get really serious and talk about fighting in hockey.

Karim · 02-15-2005, 08:12 PM

Considering the Flames ownership group has a net worth over $2 billion US, I think the threat of moving is a smokescreen. They simply do not want to run the team at a loss. It's obviously not a money-making venture for them so breaking even and retaining some semblance of competitiveness is all they're asking for. I think even without linkage this will be achieved because the gap between the Flames (~$35 million) and the top teams will be at most $15 million. What's more important for a team like the Flames is the nature of qualifying offers, the age of unrestricted free agency, entry level salaries and the arbitration system.

I'll be surprised if the players accept this after losing so much money in holding out for no cap.

kcchief19 · 02-15-2005, 08:35 PM

I think the players have realized they have lost and are just trying to salvage what they can. Look at the number of players who have started playing in the minors or in Europe. It's the Patrick Ewing Syndrome -- they may make a lot of money but they spend a lot of money.

I'll grant that the 24 percent rollback was a huge concession, but the $52 million salary cap would be akin to the MLBPA agreeing to rollback salaries 24 percent and then agreeing to a $150 million salary cap. At the level of cap the players are demanding, the cap is irrelevant. The owners' $40 million cap is a bit of a trick, too, because under their proposal of linking the cap to revenues, the cap is almost guaranteed not to increase and may go down, since attendance is likely to struggle and the next TV deal is going to be crap.

If the players have gone this far, they have almost no choice but to go all the way and give in. Sadly, many of the owners are losing less money shutdown than playing. The only side losing money in a shutdown is the players. They are over the proverbial barrell.

ISiddiqui · 02-15-2005, 08:41 PM

Yep... there are some owners who'd love to not have a season at all, because they'd lose less money. OTOH, the players don't win anything by having the season canceled. The owners hold the power because they got less to lose.

Mr. Wednesday · 02-15-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

Outside of Alberta, I don't really believe the NHL is in trouble in Canada.

Didn't the Senators nearly go bankrupt?

Maple Leafs · 02-15-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Didn't the Senators nearly go bankrupt?

They actually did go bankrupt. But they have more stable ownership now, and received some favorable tax breaks. So they're not at risk now, unless the tax breaks are rescinded (possible) and/or Melnyk's personal fortune disappears as Biovail goes down the tubes (more than possible).

Cydney · 02-15-2005, 09:09 PM

I repeat, every Canadian team is at risk, with, of course, the exception of Toronto. Montreal is next least, but even they can be in big trouble under the current system, or even this new proposal. Canada's problem is that we simply do not have the population to support teams of millionaires. Winnipeg is a fantastic hockey town, but still lost the Jets. It's not just a matter of stable ownership.

SoxWin · 02-15-2005, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cydney

I repeat, every Canadian team is at risk,

And I repeat, you're wrong.

Vancouver had a payroll in the mid 40's last year and raked in 20 mil in profit. They have 17,000 season tickets sold in an arena that seats about 18,500 and a long waiting list if anyone gives up their seats. Even in yesterdays NHL, that kind of payroll was more then enough to field a good team, year in and year out, given good scouting and management.

Chubby · 02-15-2005, 09:21 PM

$42.5 take it or leave it offer by the league. We'll know tomorrow morning if hockey is saved.

As much as I'd like a link between revenues and a cap, I don't want hockey to disappear and the NHL needs a season this year...

TazFTW · 02-15-2005, 09:23 PM

What about Edmonton? I thought they're very poor (unless their owner is the NHL equivalent of Donald Sterling).

Solecismic · 02-15-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cydney

I repeat, every Canadian team is at risk, with, of course, the exception of Toronto. Montreal is next least, but even they can be in big trouble under the current system, or even this new proposal. Canada's problem is that we simply do not have the population to support teams of millionaires. Winnipeg is a fantastic hockey town, but still lost the Jets. It's not just a matter of stable ownership.

The Montreal area has more people than most U.S. areas with teams. And probably more dedicated hockey fans than any area in North America other than Toronto.

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I don't want an NHL that doesn't include Les Canadiens. It was bad enough losing the Nordiques, but their pajama-uniforms made that loss bearable.

I've been shouted down on this before, but it's not about arena attendance as long as that's decent. Places like Raleigh (where I've lived), Miami, Tampa Bay, Dallas and Phoenix just should not have NHL teams.

Contract the league to 24 teams to improve the offense, put in a little revenue sharing, use the NFL model for a salary cap, ban fighting, cut active rosters to 18 and widen the rinks. Do all that, and the NHL will thrive within just a few years.

Chubby · 02-15-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Montreal area has more people than most U.S. areas with teams. And probably more dedicated hockey fans than any area in North America other than Toronto.

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I don't want an NHL that doesn't include Les Canadiens. It was bad enough losing the Nordiques, but their pajama-uniforms made that loss bearable.

I've been shouted down on this before, but it's not about arena attendance as long as that's decent. Places like Raleigh (where I've lived), Miami, Tampa Bay, Dallas and Phoenix just should not have NHL teams.

Contract the league to 24 teams to improve the offense, put in a little revenue sharing, use the NFL model for a salary cap, ban fighting, cut active rosters to 18 and widen the rinks. Do all that, and the NHL will thrive within just a few years.

I agree with everything but the bolded thing.

SunDancer · 02-15-2005, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Montreal area has more people than most U.S. areas with teams. And probably more dedicated hockey fans than any area in North America other than Toronto.

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I don't want an NHL that doesn't include Les Canadiens. It was bad enough losing the Nordiques, but their pajama-uniforms made that loss bearable.

I've been shouted down on this before, but it's not about arena attendance as long as that's decent. Places like Raleigh (where I've lived), Miami, Tampa Bay, Dallas and Phoenix just should not have NHL teams.

Contract the league to 24 teams to improve the offense, put in a little revenue sharing, use the NFL model for a salary cap, ban fighting, cut active rosters to 18 and widen the rinks. Do all that, and the NHL will thrive within just a few years.

Agree with the Canadian part. But why should the southern cities like Miami, Raleigh, Tampa Bay, Dallas (a franchise that is able to attract fans and be profitable), and whatever else just not have NHL teams?

Chubby · 02-15-2005, 10:00 PM

Union has countered with a $49 mil cap already tonight.

Split the difference and make a deal!

Solecismic · 02-15-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Agree with the Canadian part. But why should the southern cities like Miami, Raleigh, Tampa Bay, Dallas (a franchise that is able to attract fans and be profitable), and whatever else just not have NHL teams?

Teams have to do more than make money - they need to generate widespread local interest. If the local television and radio numbers in Dallas and Los Angeles compare to those in other U.S. cities with teams, that's fine.

I would immediately remove the following six teams: Nashville, Phoenix, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and Anaheim. I would give Dallas a chance. The Tampa Bay franchise is a little more iffy. I might consider moving a team back to Winnipeg. Portland, Oregon might get a team. Buffalo would be on notice.

I would add one more rule: the league would have to maintain a pool with which to equalize taxes paid out by players, so that the Canadian teams wouldn't have to pay more to acquire the same player and could compete fairly in free agency.

Chubby · 02-15-2005, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Teams have to do more than make money - they need to generate widespread local interest. If the local television and radio numbers in Dallas and Los Angeles compare to those in other U.S. cities with teams, that's fine.

I would immediately remove the following six teams: Nashville, Phoenix, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and Anaheim. I would give Dallas a chance. The Tampa Bay franchise is a little more iffy. I might consider moving a team back to Winnipeg. Portland, Oregon might get a team. Buffalo would be on notice.

I would add one more rule: the league would have to maintain a pool with which to equalize taxes paid out by players, so that the Canadian teams wouldn't have to pay more to acquire the same player and could compete fairly in free agency.

Buffalo ain't going anywhere. Golisano has already pledged to keep the Bills here when Ralph passes if it's needed. The fan base is here and knowing that the ownership isn't a bunch of thieving cheats (Adelphia) they will be out in force as they were when the club was under Knox ownership.

Maple Leafs · 02-15-2005, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Union has countered with a $49 mil cap already tonight.

Which Bettman immediately rejects.

It's going to be a long night.

Chubby · 02-15-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Which Bettman immediately rejects.

It's going to be a long night.

Hmm, it's only an hour and a half to Niagara Falls from here...

How did Bettman reject this? Source? As far as I know he isn't in Niagara Falls, only Saskin and Daly were there (not Goodenow or Bettman)

Solecismic · 02-15-2005, 10:09 PM

I think they should just stick them (edit, the Sabres) on an I-90 rest stop halfway between Albany and the Falls. It's all hockey country.

Chubby · 02-15-2005, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think they should just stick them (edit, the Sabres) on an I-90 rest stop halfway between Albany and the Falls. It's all hockey country.

I wonder where they actually are because I don't ever recall seeing any primo hotels in Niagara Falls on my way to the Senaca casino or to the canadian casinos.

Dr. Sak · 02-15-2005, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Hmm, it's only an hour and a half to Niagara Falls from here...

How did Bettman reject this? Source? As far as I know he isn't in Niagara Falls, only Saskin and Daly were there (not Goodenow or Bettman)

hxxp://www.tsn.ca

02-15-2005, 01:22 PM	#4
Mr. Wednesday Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: South Bend, IN	If I were to guess, I would guess that the players don't trust their ability to put together a formula that accurately accounts for ownership revenue from secondary sources, so they'd rather make it something that gets bargained. __________________ Hattrick - Brays Bayou FC (70854) / USA III.4 Hockey Arena - Houston Aeros / USA II.1 Thanks to my FOFC Hattrick supporters - Blackout, Brillig, kingfc22, RPI-fan, Rich1033, antbacker, One_to7, ur_land, KevinNU7, and TonyR (PM me if you support me and I've missed you)

02-15-2005, 01:51 PM	#5
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	we're not talking about just 12 million, we're talking 12 million per team. that's still a hefty chunk of change __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

02-15-2005, 01:54 PM	#6
bbor Pro Starter Join Date: May 2001 Location: toronto	Crack in the players armour? Still too late to have a meaningful season IMHO. __________________ Pumpy Tudors Now that I've cracked and made that admission, I wonder if I'm only a couple of steps away from wanting to tongue-kiss Jaromir Jagr and give Bobby Clarke a blowjob.

02-15-2005, 01:59 PM	#7
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	True... but now the players have shown they'll give up their opposition to a hard cap. Great victory for the owners. Maybe they can just have a 30 team playoff . Maybe make a round robin in each division and then elimination (somewhat like the FIFA World Cup). __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

02-15-2005, 02:19 PM	#9
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	A crack in the armor of both sides. The players will now accept a cap, and the owners will now accept a cap with no linkage. It sure seems like they're too close now to let the season slip away, but as Foz pointed out that $12M adds up to about a billion dollars every three years. It's not peanuts. __________________ Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis

02-15-2005, 01:19 PM	#2
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	i think it's close. just split the difference and play. if the league lets $12million keep the season locked then the NHL should never exist.

02-15-2005, 02:18 PM	#8
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	what's the point at this juncture? the "champions" will always have a "*" next to their names in the books. no one is gonna take this season's (providing there is one) champion as legit. at this point - cancel the season - and have something great in place for '05-'06.

02-15-2005, 02:21 PM	#10
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	No way this deal gets done unless there is imputus for a season. As I said somewhere else, without the line in the sand nothing gets done until probably Jan 06. By then I'd bet several teams fold. These are the most important 28 games ever for the NHL. __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

02-15-2005, 02:22 PM	#11
Pyser Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Los Angeles	the problem is if they cancel the season, the players will most likely say they once again wont accept a cap, and the owners will want to tie the cap to league revenue. if it doesnt get done in the next few days, its not getting done for a year.

02-15-2005, 02:25 PM	#12
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Yep... that is why you NEED a season. That puts some final goal for these discussions. Without any season at all, the NHL is even more fucked. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

02-15-2005, 02:26 PM	#14
Pyser Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Los Angeles	dont you think its a little weird that the players absolutely refused a cap for 2 years, then 36 hours away from the league cancelling the season, they cave? the bigger cap, plus the 24% rollback still in effect...if the league still cant come to an agreement, the players will go back to the beginning. im nearly positive of this.

02-15-2005, 02:41 PM	#16
Schmidty Coordinator Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Early, TX	For as patriotic as most Canadians act ( and I see a TON here in Bellingham), Candian hockey players seem totally UN-patriotic, since their demands would almost totally destroy the NHL in Canada (outside of Toronto, Calgary and maybe Vancouver). I guess I'm just confused by all of the fake bullshit the Canadian hockey players spew. __________________ Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross Last edited by Schmidty : 02-15-2005 at 05:19 PM.

02-15-2005, 04:51 PM	#17
SoxWin H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Feb 2003	Fake bs like taking a huge paycut and agreeing to a cap?

02-15-2005, 07:01 PM	#20
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	Well, the other thing is that some fairly major players are playing overseas, so "sub-par" relative to any other season might be "good enough" this year.

02-15-2005, 08:03 PM	#29
SoxWin H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Feb 2003	lol, I was actually thinking it might be more productive to have a thread about Bush v Kerry, pro life v pro choice, or perhaps a good old fashioned gun law debate...... I honestly don't believe the league was ever interested in a serious negotiation, but we're never going to agree so to hell with it

02-15-2005, 08:12 PM	#31
Karim College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Calgary	Considering the Flames ownership group has a net worth over $2 billion US, I think the threat of moving is a smokescreen. They simply do not want to run the team at a loss. It's obviously not a money-making venture for them so breaking even and retaining some semblance of competitiveness is all they're asking for. I think even without linkage this will be achieved because the gap between the Flames (~$35 million) and the top teams will be at most $15 million. What's more important for a team like the Flames is the nature of qualifying offers, the age of unrestricted free agency, entry level salaries and the arbitration system. I'll be surprised if the players accept this after losing so much money in holding out for no cap.

02-15-2005, 08:35 PM	#32
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	I think the players have realized they have lost and are just trying to salvage what they can. Look at the number of players who have started playing in the minors or in Europe. It's the Patrick Ewing Syndrome -- they may make a lot of money but they spend a lot of money. I'll grant that the 24 percent rollback was a huge concession, but the $52 million salary cap would be akin to the MLBPA agreeing to rollback salaries 24 percent and then agreeing to a $150 million salary cap. At the level of cap the players are demanding, the cap is irrelevant. The owners' $40 million cap is a bit of a trick, too, because under their proposal of linking the cap to revenues, the cap is almost guaranteed not to increase and may go down, since attendance is likely to struggle and the next TV deal is going to be crap. If the players have gone this far, they have almost no choice but to go all the way and give in. Sadly, many of the owners are losing less money shutdown than playing. The only side losing money in a shutdown is the players. They are over the proverbial barrell.

02-15-2005, 08:41 PM	#33
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Yep... there are some owners who'd love to not have a season at all, because they'd lose less money. OTOH, the players don't win anything by having the season canceled. The owners hold the power because they got less to lose. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

02-15-2005, 09:09 PM	#36
Cydney n00b Join Date: Sep 2004	I repeat, every Canadian team is at risk, with, of course, the exception of Toronto. Montreal is next least, but even they can be in big trouble under the current system, or even this new proposal. Canada's problem is that we simply do not have the population to support teams of millionaires. Winnipeg is a fantastic hockey town, but still lost the Jets. It's not just a matter of stable ownership.

02-15-2005, 09:21 PM	#38
Chubby Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Syracuse, NY	$42.5 take it or leave it offer by the league. We'll know tomorrow morning if hockey is saved. As much as I'd like a link between revenues and a cap, I don't want hockey to disappear and the NHL needs a season this year...

02-15-2005, 09:23 PM	#39
TazFTW Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Honolulu, HI	What about Edmonton? I thought they're very poor (unless their owner is the NHL equivalent of Donald Sterling).

02-15-2005, 10:00 PM	#43
Chubby Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Syracuse, NY	Union has countered with a $49 mil cap already tonight. Split the difference and make a deal!

02-15-2005, 10:09 PM	#48
Solecismic Solecismic Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Canton, OH	I think they should just stick them (edit, the Sabres) on an I-90 rest stop halfway between Albany and the Falls. It's all hockey country. Last edited by Solecismic : 02-15-2005 at 10:10 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)