If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN) NewsFlash We kin haz hockey?   (espn.go.com) divider line 253
    More: NewsFlash, NHL, Gary Bettman  
•       •       •

4311 clicks; posted to Sports » on 16 Oct 2012 at 1:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-16 01:07:04 PM
OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE
 
2012-10-16 01:07:23 PM
Please oh please oh please oh please.
 
2012-10-16 01:09:56 PM
17 minutes ago
@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Donald Fehr going to address media in the next 15 min
 
2012-10-16 01:10:00 PM
Please let git r done already!
 
2012-10-16 01:10:59 PM
Awesome PR move by the NHL - release only the 50-50 split information, which will make the NHLPA look greedy even if the rest of the deal is a shiat sandwich for them.
 
2012-10-16 01:12:55 PM
An offer is not a deal. Not a newsflash.

We're still in 'car!' mode. Get back to me when it's game on.
 
2012-10-16 01:13:52 PM
50-50 split was in the player's previous offer, albeit not for the whole term of the deal.

This is the best they're going to do and what makes it better is that they'll still get a full 82 game season which means they get paid the full amount, less the rollback if that's still in there.


In other words, players:

unrealitymag.com

"That's the best deal you're gonna get, friendo".
 
2012-10-16 01:14:19 PM
I would love to see some hockey, but I'm with the players if they turn this down.

Owners need to present some evidence that they're not making money.
 
2012-10-16 01:14:50 PM
Please let it happen. The whining will be deafening otherwise.
 
2012-10-16 01:15:08 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Awesome PR move by the NHL - release only the 50-50 split information, which will make the NHLPA look greedy even if the rest of the deal is a shiat sandwich for them.


Yes, just like last time, the owners are putting the players in a position where refusal of their offer means the players, not the owners, nuked the whole season.

It's a classic Bettman move.

and I hope it works...
 
2012-10-16 01:15:20 PM
Anything to keep them out of the NFL threads posting score updates from third tier hockey leagues
 
2012-10-16 01:15:21 PM

unyon: An offer is not a deal. Not a newsflash.

We're still in 'car!' mode. Get back to me when it's game on.


crackinfilms.files.wordpress.com

A truly great metaphor, my hat's off to you.
 
2012-10-16 01:15:50 PM

Rev.K: In other words, players:



"That's the best deal you're gonna get, friendo".


Hate to break it to you, but they aren't going to take the deal just because the NHL makes it sound like a fair one. The 50-50 split is one aspect of the deal. This is foreplay.
 
2012-10-16 01:16:32 PM

Rev.K: Yes, just like last time, the owners are putting the players in a position where refusal of their offer means the players, not the owners, nuked the whole season.

It's a classic Bettman move.

and I hope it works...


Siding with ownership, the villains in this entire ordeal. Sleep tight.
 
2012-10-16 01:18:31 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Hate to break it to you, but they aren't going to take the deal just because the NHL makes it sound like a fair one. The 50-50 split is one aspect of the deal. This is foreplay.


FTA:

A source with knowledge of the offer told ESPNNewYork.com that the players' primary concern -- that their current contracts are honored -- is addressed in the proposal. Escrow is capped under the terms of the offer, and there is a mechanism in place to honor those contract already in the books, according to the source.

That's a pretty huge concession to remove the rollback. Although it's unclear what "mechanism" means in terms of honouring contracts, likely it's dependent on some sort of threshold for total league revenues.

Don't interpret my comments as wholesale support for the owners, I don't support them.

The only people I support are fans like us, I want hockey and I don't give a f*ck what the terms are, they aren't gonna make me any money.
 
2012-10-16 01:18:47 PM
Gah!
 
2012-10-16 01:19:23 PM

Dafatone: I would love to see some hockey, but I'm with the players if they turn this down.

Owners need to present some evidence that they're not making money.


We'll be right back here again unless the owners accept increased revenue-sharing amongst themselves. There's no way that most of the teams should be hurting while Montreal/Boston/New York/Toronto/Chicago/Detroit get rich. (Particularly Toronto.) The original six are nothing but a backwater niche sport without the rest of the league, and the players shouldn't be the ones to prop up the sport's overall profitability.
 
2012-10-16 01:19:33 PM
No. They've done this to me too many times. No More NHL for me.
 
2012-10-16 01:20:09 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Siding with ownership, the villains in this entire ordeal. Sleep tight.


I fail to see where if there isn't a real rev share plan in place among teams, we somehow don't end up with another in lockout in another 5-10 years.

The entire business model of the NHL is so fundamentally flawed outside of the players, I'm willing to wait longer until it's fixed completely.
 
2012-10-16 01:20:38 PM

Rev.K: Don't interpret my comments as wholesale support for the owners, I don't support them.

The only people I support are fans like us, I want hockey and I don't give a f*ck what the terms are, they aren't gonna make me any money.


I know, but if the owners keep winning every single time they do this, the cycle of lockouts will continue every 8 years since they refuse to address the root of the problem - too many franchises in unsustainable markets. I'd sacrifice a couple months for a deal that is actually fair.
 
2012-10-16 01:20:49 PM

Yanks_RSJ: It's a classic Bettman move.

and I hope it works...

Siding with ownership, the villains in this entire ordeal. Sleep tight.


If the players don't like it,they make a counter-offer, (something with extensive revenue-sharing) and put the onus right back on management. Two can play this game.
 
2012-10-16 01:21:19 PM
DO THIS NOW! This is a completely fine offer. Been saying for months this is what they needed to come to. DO IT!
 
2012-10-16 01:22:36 PM

Killer Cars: Yanks_RSJ: Siding with ownership, the villains in this entire ordeal. Sleep tight.

I fail to see where if there isn't a real rev share plan in place among teams, we somehow don't end up with another in lockout in another 5-10 years.

The entire business model of the NHL is so fundamentally flawed outside of the players, I'm willing to wait longer until it's fixed completely.


NHL owners are still living in the stone-age, after the NFL, NBA, and MLB have moved to highly-profitable models. If the NHL wants the value of its franchises to substantially appreciate, they'll adopt broader revenue sharing. But I'm not hopeful. NHL owners have proved themselves extremely short-sighted over the years.
 
2012-10-16 01:23:08 PM

Killer Cars: The entire business model of the NHL is so fundamentally flawed outside of the players, I'm willing to wait longer until it's fixed completely.


Bingo.
 
2012-10-16 01:23:16 PM

Yanks_RSJ: I know, but if the owners keep winning every single time they do this, the cycle of lockouts will continue every 8 years since they refuse to address the root of the problem - too many franchises in unsustainable markets. I'd sacrifice a couple months for a deal that is actually fair.


Absolutely. I don't disagree at all.

The owners are a huge part of this problem. They got their salary cap, they got their cost certainty and then they went away and hung themselves on decade-long, eight-figure deals and now they want to come back to the PA, caps in hand saying, pay up or get out. It's bullsh*t.
 
2012-10-16 01:23:35 PM

Mike F: DO THIS NOW! This is a completely fine offer. Been saying for months this is what they needed to come to. DO IT!


Which shows you don't really understand the issues.
 
2012-10-16 01:24:33 PM

Galloping Galoshes: If the players don't like it,they make a counter-offer, (something with extensive revenue-sharing) and put the onus right back on management. Two can play this game.


Look at how many people have already shown up to say "TAKE IT HURRY HOCKEY NOW!!" The NHL can point to a "50-50 split" and people will always say that's fair regardless of the other terms, or the definition of "hockey related revenue".
 
2012-10-16 01:24:59 PM
Zang!!
 
2012-10-16 01:25:23 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Dafatone: I would love to see some hockey, but I'm with the players if they turn this down.

Owners need to present some evidence that they're not making money.

We'll be right back here again unless the owners accept increased revenue-sharing amongst themselves. There's no way that most of the teams should be hurting while Montreal/Boston/New York/Toronto/Chicago/Detroit get rich. (Particularly Toronto.) The original six are nothing but a backwater niche sport without the rest of the league, and the players shouldn't be the ones to prop up the sport's overall profitability.


Without seeing specifics it's difficult to tell what may happen. As part of the bargaining process it may be returned as, "We agree in prinicipal, but only if you relax the current revenue sharing rules and provide more money and marketing support to the struggling franchises." If the specifics show that this is a good concession on part the of owners, the NHLPA needs to think hard about using it and moving the process forward.
 
2012-10-16 01:25:59 PM

Yanks_RSJ: too many franchises in unsustainable markets


True, until they go to broader revenue-sharing, like the NFL has. How many NFL franchises could make it without the TV money, which is shares equally? Certain franchises want to hang onto their profitable regional networks, which are draining $ away from any national interest, and hurting the league as a whole.
 
2012-10-16 01:27:09 PM

soopey: Galloping Galoshes: Dafatone: I would love to see some hockey, but I'm with the players if they turn this down.

Owners need to present some evidence that they're not making money.

We'll be right back here again unless the owners accept increased revenue-sharing amongst themselves. There's no way that most of the teams should be hurting while Montreal/Boston/New York/Toronto/Chicago/Detroit get rich. (Particularly Toronto.) The original six are nothing but a backwater niche sport without the rest of the league, and the players shouldn't be the ones to prop up the sport's overall profitability.

Without seeing specifics it's difficult to tell what may happen. As part of the bargaining process it may be returned as, "We agree in prinicipal, but only if you relax the current revenue sharing rules and provide more money and marketing support to the struggling franchises." If the specifics show that this is a good concession on part the of owners, the NHLPA needs to think hard about using it and moving the process forward.


Yes, but as you say, specifics are lacking. A 50/50 split is not enough for the union to agree.
 
2012-10-16 01:28:52 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Galloping Galoshes: If the players don't like it,they make a counter-offer, (something with extensive revenue-sharing) and put the onus right back on management. Two can play this game.

Look at how many people have already shown up to say "TAKE IT HURRY HOCKEY NOW!!" The NHL can point to a "50-50 split" and people will always say that's fair regardless of the other terms, or the definition of "hockey related revenue".


So? So far there's no players coming forward and saying that, and they're the ones with the votes. Fehr can spin this right back and pick a few points to pound to show the 50/50 is window dressing, if that's all it really is.
 
2012-10-16 01:29:35 PM

Galloping Galoshes: True, until they go to broader revenue-sharing, like the NFL has. How many NFL franchises could make it without the TV money, which is shares equally? Certain franchises want to hang onto their profitable regional networks, which are draining $ away from any national interest, and hurting the league as a whole.


The NFL is the most popular sport in America and has a multi-billion dollar national TV deal, so 32 teams at least makes sense. The NHL is a much more regional sport, and you can't ask the Original Six to support markets that lose millions every year locally. That's not fair either.

30 teams is entirely too many for the limited TV revenue the league brings in. The pie is being cut into too many pieces.
 
2012-10-16 01:29:56 PM
Either both sides drink the poison or nothing gets done.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-16 01:30:40 PM

Rev.K: The only people I support are fans like us, I want hockey and I don't give a f*ck what the terms are, they aren't gonna make me any money.


Trust me, I would like to watch NHL hockey sooner rather than later, but I'm sick and f*cking tired of these goddamn useless band-aids being being stuck on for every labor negotiation that will wear off in a few years and this song & dance will just happen again.

If we don't hold the league (and the players, too, for their part, although it's much smaller in this equation) to REALLY fix things, like, for real this time, then they have no urgency to fix it.
 
2012-10-16 01:31:23 PM

Galloping Galoshes: So? So far there's no players coming forward and saying that, and they're the ones with the votes. Fehr can spin this right back and pick a few points to pound to show the 50/50 is window dressing, if that's all it really is.


You're giving hockey-hungry fans a little too much credit, IMO. The NHL brought in a former Republican strategist to be their spin doctor, they aren't going to lose the PR war here, because too many people already hate Donald Fehr in the first place.
 
2012-10-16 01:32:02 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Awesome PR move by the NHL - release only the 50-50 split information, which will make the NHLPA look greedy even if the rest of the deal is a shiat sandwich for them.


Yep. Next up, Bettman starts using the term "work stoppage".
 
2012-10-16 01:32:40 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, gooooody.......


no, really - I enjoy those kind, considerate Bruins fans on my daily commute. They are wonderful examples of sports fans....
 
2012-10-16 01:32:57 PM
Fine, let the wretched denizens of the frozen north have their mooseball.
 
2012-10-16 01:33:03 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Rev.K: Don't interpret my comments as wholesale support for the owners, I don't support them.

The only people I support are fans like us, I want hockey and I don't give a f*ck what the terms are, they aren't gonna make me any money.

I know, but if the owners keep winning every single time they do this, the cycle of lockouts will continue every 8 years since they refuse to address the root of the problem - too many franchises in unsustainable markets. I'd sacrifice a couple months for a deal that is actually fair.


it is in the interests of hockey as a sport to get into these markets. Given enough time, many of them take hold. Look at Philly for instance. A extremely profitable team not in an original six market, and not even a huge market to begin with, considering the other teams close by that they share fans with. Look at LA. Look at the Sharks.

I agree that bigger revenue sharing needs to happen between the owners. But what is fair in that? The TV deal simply isn't at the level of the NFL, or MLB, or even the NBA. And it won't ever get to anything close to those levels if you don't grow your secondary markets and make hockey a national sport.

So should the Rangers have to give up a chunck of the merchandising or gate to help, say, the Coyotes? Should they have to give up part of their local TV deals (which is tricky to calculate in larger markets because of regional sports networks)?

This is as fair of a deal as is going to be put out there for both sides which still salvages the season. No rollback on existing contracts from what I read. That makes it sound like the cap number will stay put.
 
2012-10-16 01:33:11 PM
Rumor has it the deal is a 50/50 split of hockey related revenue, but the players are insisting they keep at least 75% of the profits from all Sedin "Two Girls, No Cup" and anti-Canadiens "No Diving" t-shirts. That there is the sweetest plum for them.
 
2012-10-16 01:33:17 PM

Yanks_RSJ: The NFL is the most popular sport in America and has a multi-billion dollar national TV deal, so 32 teams at least makes sense. The NHL is a much more regional sport, and you can't ask the Original Six to support markets that lose millions every year locally. That's not fair either.


Really? Who are the original 6 playing against? They don't play in a vacuum, or against each other exclusively. The discussion you're proposing is a reasonable one to have if revenue sharing is being discussed. Were I a player, I would object to making all the franchises profitable on my back. The league is an organic unit, and should treat its revenues as such.
 
2012-10-16 01:33:57 PM
So if the players take the 50/50 spit what happens next time? Will they want a 51/49 split or more?
 
2012-10-16 01:35:57 PM

Yanks_RSJ: You're giving hockey-hungry fans a little too much credit, IMO


Maybe, but ain't nobody as hockey-hungry as me. I play, ref, and have three kids in the sport. Gimme hockey. But don't take it away in five or so years again because the owners were too shortsighted to address the fundamental problems in their sport.
 
2012-10-16 01:36:36 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Yanks_RSJ: The NFL is the most popular sport in America and has a multi-billion dollar national TV deal, so 32 teams at least makes sense. The NHL is a much more regional sport, and you can't ask the Original Six to support markets that lose millions every year locally. That's not fair either.

Really? Who are the original 6 playing against? They don't play in a vacuum, or against each other exclusively. The discussion you're proposing is a reasonable one to have if revenue sharing is being discussed. Were I a player, I would object to making all the franchises profitable on my back. The league is an organic unit, and should treat its revenues as such.


If it were organic, the franchises losing money year after year after year would be allowed to die off instead of being given the keys to the 2nd lockout in less than a decade. I'm not saying you need to have 12 teams in the league, but a league of 24-28 teams is a hell of a lot more reasonable given the regional and financial limitations in certain markets.
 
2012-10-16 01:37:18 PM
I do not miss the sport anymore, but know 34 millions who do!
and a nice amount here!
 
2012-10-16 01:38:30 PM

Dafatone: I would love to see some hockey, but I'm with the players if they turn this down.

Owners need to present some evidence that they're not making money.


You're an idiot.

The league dumped a couple thousand pages of financial documents in the NHLPA's lap. They showed the NHLPA that they're not making money. No, they didn't release sensitive financial documents to the entire world for fans to horribly misinterpret, imagine that.


The players have a point on revenue sharing, but they've been much worse than the NHL with the two faced lying crap since this started, and it's hard to have any sympathy for them. They take no risk financially (don't give me the "they put their bodies on the line" bullcrap, that's what the salaries are for), and they make it very difficult for most teams to turn a profit, since they're getting such a huge heap of the revenue.
 
2012-10-16 01:39:06 PM
I wish Cheap Throat would chime in on this.
 
2012-10-16 01:40:00 PM

LineNoise: I agree that bigger revenue sharing needs to happen between the owners. But what is fair in that?


The league is not a collection of franchises that got together informally to play hockey. They don't play outside the league. The league is a unit. The entertainment is provided by all the teams playing against each other and competing for the Cup. If you buy a franchise, all the owners share in the proceeds. Until there's a national TV deal, I would argue that some of the proceeds from regional networks should be shared. Otherwise what's the advantage of a national TV deal to a club with a strong regional network? I much prefer the NFL model for a league that wants to grow nationally.
 
2012-10-16 01:40:21 PM

Rev.K: That's a pretty huge concession to remove the rollback.


Actually, it's no concession at all. It is the retraction of a demand. Just sayin'.
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report