NHL lockout?

Sports, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, exercise, biking, scooters...you get the idea.
Post Reply
butcher99
Guru
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 8:52 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by butcher99 »

Rwede wrote:Another good reason to get rid of unions and let the players negotiate their contracts plus profit sharing based on the value they bring to their employers.



This is what they do now btw only under a union umbrella. There is no set pay scale for players the owners just do not seem to be able to add up the costs of he contracts they sign so the OWNERS keep on driving up wages.
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by theyeti »

why should someone who can skate fast be paid so much the owner puts up a billion in credit to bankroll it all without the owner the player makes absolutely nothing ...

i think 1 million is way more than any hockey players time ought to be worth ..

and they can pay there own travel and such they make more than enuff
butcher99
Guru
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 8:52 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by butcher99 »

theyeti wrote:why should someone who can skate fast be paid so much the owner puts up a billion in credit to bankroll it all without the owner the player makes absolutely nothing ...

i think 1 million is way more than any hockey players time ought to be worth ..

and they can pay there own travel and such they make more than enuff


Because there are not many who can do it or have the talent. They get paid so much because the owners offered them that much. The owners can always say no, I will not pay you that much. Go away.
Without the player the owner has nothing. As they have found out.
If great hockey players were as common as carpenters they would be paid the same.
Gilchy
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2635
Joined: Nov 19th, 2010, 6:51 am

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by Gilchy »

When looking at contract disputes in pro sports, people seem to ignore supply and demand. Does it seem crazy that someone can make over $7 million a year playing hockey? Maybe... but crowds regularily sell out 18,000 set arenas with $150 tickets, so there is clearly the market and demand to watch these players at those salaries.

From the PA perspective, the insulting thing is that the same owners who are now crying poor, and trying to roll back existing contracts, were handing out $100 million contracts right up to the CBA deadline. Craig Leopold being the prime example.
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by theyeti »

ya but the owner can use that billion in credit any way he or she chooses .. its only the players who stand to lose out here
butcher99
Guru
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 8:52 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by butcher99 »

theyeti wrote:ya but the owner can use that billion in credit any way he or she chooses .. its only the players who stand to lose out here

No the owner is losing while this i going on as well. They still have all the expenses of running the team minus the salaries. They have rented the arenas so I assume they still have to pay the rent. They still have coaches and training staff although the trainers may be laid off. they still have scouts. For Bell Rogers and the Canucks leafs and Montreal and the rest of the money making teams they are losing money. The loser teams? who cares. let them disappear. they are the problem. move them into territories where they can make money. Don't you think a team based in Regina would make a lot more money than a team based in diddly squat southern USA?
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by theyeti »

regina is football country go riders green and white !
Gilchy
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2635
Joined: Nov 19th, 2010, 6:51 am

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by Gilchy »

Regina is a tiny little town (comparatively speaking), and would be far and away the smallest NHL city. They could not sustain an NHL team on an ongoing basis. The first few years would sell out, but then it would be too expensive too continue likely.

Winnipeg will have its own issues in a few year too.
butcher99
Guru
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 8:52 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by butcher99 »

Gilchy wrote:Regina is a tiny little town (comparatively speaking), and would be far and away the smallest NHL city. They could not sustain an NHL team on an ongoing basis. The first few years would sell out, but then it would be too expensive too continue likely.

Winnipeg will have its own issues in a few year too.


That was not the question. Do you not think that Regina would be in a lot more stable position than the teams that are currently on the bottom end of the revenue scale?
People on the prairies think nothing of long drives for something like that. A 200 mile drive in for a hockey game would be nothing. Saskatoon is 2 hours away and adds another 250,000 people to the mix to you have a half million to draw from in just those two cities. Between the two you could certainly get more than the 6-10,000 some of the bottom teams get per game. They average 31,000 to a football game. Some of them at -20.
I am not saying it is feasible just that if you put a team in a hockey town you can expect much better results than putting a team in a non-hockey town and hoping people show an interest.
Of course not having an arena there would be a major drawback but it is so damn cold there they could just play outside.
User avatar
Poindexter
Guru
Posts: 6277
Joined: May 26th, 2008, 11:44 am

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by Poindexter »

Can you imagine the taunting in Boston if a team with the name Regina came to town? :dyinglaughing:

Sorry for my low brow moment, I actually agree with what you were saying. I get a picture of these guys looking at large maps and across Canada with bold letters - 'Captured Audiance: it doesn't matter what we do. :sillygrin: ".

They'll continue thier growth strategy through the US if Bettman has his way.
Remember: Humans are 99% chimp.
butcher99
Guru
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 8:52 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by butcher99 »

Poindexter wrote:Can you imagine the taunting in Boston if a team with the name Regina came to town? :dyinglaughing:

They'll continue thier growth strategy through the US if Bettman has his way.


I can understand why they want to do that in the long term as well but perhaps they just went too far overboard. The big money is in getting the US market and that is a good long term strategy. But when you try and turn a long term strategy into a short term one it is going to cost you a lot of money and the owners just do not want to put up the money.
User avatar
JayByrd
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4405
Joined: Aug 14th, 2006, 2:50 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by JayByrd »

The NHL has attempted to expand into TV markets, rather than hockey markets, because TV contracts are where the money is. Ticket sales are important, but they are finite. Once your building is full every night, you've reached the limit of that revenue stream. While some of the non-traditional markets have struggled, the league as a whole seems determined to continue this course.

As for "Bettman having his way", he only does what the Board of Governors (made up mostly of majority owners/club presidents) tell him to do. Expansion, and selling the game in the US, was part of his mandate. He's had the job for nearly 20 years now, so they seem to be happy with him.

Another role Gary Bettman fills, is being a scapegoat for the owners. Lots of people hate Bettman, but I don't hear anyone saying they're boycotting their favourite team.

As for putting a team in Regina, having teams in cities most Americans have never heard of, doesn't add value to the TV rights. I doubt you could find an owner wanting to put a franchise there, or a Board that would approve it.
When someone says they pay taxes, you know they're about to be an ******e.
butcher99
Guru
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 8:52 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by butcher99 »

JayByrd wrote:
As for putting a team in Regina, having teams in cities most Americans have never heard of, doesn't add value to the TV rights. I doubt you could find an owner wanting to put a franchise there, or a Board that would approve it.


nobody is saying to put a team in Regina. It was just used as a market that would sell tickets and probably make money than some of the lower revenue teams.
The US TV broadcasts are not going to do much to increase the number of hockey fans in the US. The games that are broadcast are usually from pittsburg, buffalo, detroit, Boston, the hotbeds of hockey. NBC wants to sell advertising, not hockey so they, whenever possible, will only air games involving at least one of those teams and usually 2 of them. That does nothing for the fan in Columbus who wants to see their local team. Feel free to correct me on this but I believe the revenue per team is 6mil a year from TV rights for the next 10 years. Pays one players salary on ea team.
I am a real hockey fan and even I will do no more than flip to a game that does not include my team, just to see how the game is going.
That may be the owners plan, it is just not working. They got less for a 10 year term than the other big US sports get for one year.
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by theyeti »

hockey has about 1 percent the fan base of football maybe 3 percent the fan base for baseball the nhl can not compete with well runn leagues like mlb
butcher99
Guru
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mar 6th, 2005, 8:52 pm

Re: NHL lockout?

Post by butcher99 »

theyeti wrote:hockey has about 1 percent the fan base of football maybe 3 percent the fan base for baseball the nhl can not compete with well runn leagues like mlb


Somebody forgot to tell the owners and Bettman that.
Post Reply

Return to “Sports / Great Outdoors”