Screw the NHL

[ink]

What are you talking about? I asked him to show me a list of cities where struggling franchises could relocate to.

You realize that pointing out that Vegas isn't an option because of gambling is just another reason why Vegas can't be on that list?

Hope you're having a great chuckle at nothing since I said that Vegas wasn't an option.

[fingerbang]

Hope you're having a great chuckle at nothing since I said that Vegas wasn't an option.

I was proving him wrong, guy.

[ink]

I was proving him wrong, guy.

The market is viable economically. Very viable. But no league will attach itself to the gambling capital of North America. So technically you're right but economically he's still on very solid ground.

[fingerbang]

The market is viable economically. Very viable. But no league will attach itself to the gambling capital of North America. So technically you're right but economically he's still on very solid ground.

And you've proven that multiple times, how?

It would be a huge risk considering over 35% of the current teams can't make a profit under the current CBA split. Change the revenue split and I might agree with you but let's not act like Vegas is a hockey market.

[ink]

And you've proved that multiple times, how?

It would be a huge risk considering over 35% of the current teams can't make a profit under the current CBA split. Change the revenue split and I might agree with you but let's not act like Vegas is a hockey market.

Vegas has $$$$. Other southern markets don't. And they don't focus their dollars on sport like Vegas. Vegas would be a huge hit. But they won't touch it for reputation reasons.

[fingerbang]

Vegas has $$$$. Other southern markets don't. And they don't focus their dollars on sport like Vegas. Vegas would be a huge hit. But they won't touch it for reputation reasons.

I hear you but in a league where even Minnesota loses money, I'm not confident Vegas would do that well. Saying that they have money isn't going to convince me that a city based on tourism, located in the middle of the desert, is a lock to be a solid market.

[ink]

I hear you but in a league where even Minnesota loses money, I'm not confident Vegas would do that well. Saying that they have money isn't going to convince me that a city based on tourism, located in the middle of the desert, is a lock to be a solid market.

OK but that's the only one of three that may not work.

Put the damn teams in the cities where hockey belongs. Vegas is an anomaly. Forget about Vegas.

Abandon the failed southern plan, get real, drop the lame southern franchises, drop the lame expansion franchises like Columbus, add a few from hockey hotbed cities, and deal with a smaller league.

But like grumpyoldman said, it won't happen. It doesn't suit the NHL or the PAs interests in making money.

I just care about hockey.

Weird huh?

LOL

[NYSPORTS98]

You mean little Israel?

Florida was 21st in attendance. Not completely terrible. There's a lot of people with money down there. You can have a team there if they put a better product on the ice. They've never really had a star player to sell to the fans with the exception of a few years with Bure.

Like the soccer morons, some just don't get it. They don't care about hockey.

[NYSPORTS98]

It's a flat out lie.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2...fl-nba-models/

10 years and a 50-50 split seams pretty reasonable if you ask me.

LOL, to a businessman, it's an absolute joke. If the league grows the owners should have to guarantee those dollar go to the players? Not to mention, upgrades to their arenas, etc aren't the responibility of the players. So owners would upgrade their arenas, invest in marketing, etc to make more money only to have to share it with players and be forced to pay 50% to those players? That's business stupidity and nobody does that.

[kevin13697]

The NBA players receive 50%. The NFL players receive less than 50%. Last year, the NHL players received 57%.

They've actually been some of the highest paid players over the years. It's a lie.

The average nhl player makes the least amount of money of the major sports & it may be in a problem in a large gambling city was the point I was trying to make.
Gary Bettman worked for the NBA before he became commissioner of the NHL, obviously he's using the NBA CBA model to strike a new deal which is fine.
I thought the new CBA should have been offered a lot sooner & I think it should be left on the table & negotiated.

[Big Goal]

Im an old man whose patience has reached its end. 3 stoppages during
Betmanns reign is enough. They have no respect for the fans whats so ever.
They pay lip service, the the operating philosophy is screw the fans .
The fans are the third corner of their triad but we can take them for granted.
I for one will boycott them for the balance of whats left of any season.
Skrew um!!!

Well its over wrlcome to milk and honey. Whats that smell,sour milk.?

[faridk89]

LOL, to a businessman, it's an absolute joke. If the league grows the owners should have to guarantee those dollar go to the players? Not to mention, upgrades to their arenas, etc aren't the responibility of the players. So owners would upgrade their arenas, invest in marketing, etc to make more money only to have to share it with players and be forced to pay 50% to those players? That's business stupidity and nobody does that.

yep, its what I've been saying all along. I'm not even a little bit mad at the owners for this lockout. All the blame in my eyes are the money hungry 5% of the top paid players who won because of this deal, the average NHL player who will only be playing in the big leagues for 3-4 years lost here as well.

[Sly Guy]

haven't seen the details of the deal, but I was on the players' side for this one. The last lockout, they gave up huge amounts of money, and when revenue increased, they're expecting a little slice back. That's fair.

But considering how badly the last lockout went in the eyes of the public and fans, I'm extremely disappointed in the length this one went. That shows a lack of consideration to all those supporting the league, and makes me not want to watch the games.

[ink]

haven't seen the details of the deal, but I was on the players' side for this one. The last lockout, they gave up huge amounts of money, and when revenue increased, they're expecting a little slice back. That's fair.

But considering how badly the last lockout went in the eyes of the public and fans, I'm extremely disappointed in the length this one went. That shows a lack of consideration to all those supporting the league, and makes me not want to watch the games.

Same.

[TragicallyHip]

I posted this in the Lockout thread, but I didn't see this thread before posting, which is really where it belongs:

I'm curious to see what the difference between this accepted deal and the inital proposals is.

I basically want to know if much changed or they were just being greedy bastards for nothing.

I refuse to go to a game this year, nor spend any money on anything NHL related.

Before you criticize me just remember that your beloved team didn't give a **** about you when they locked out and still won't when you come back kissing their *** like nothing ever happened.