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)   The NHL lockout is bothering everyone so much even Barack Obama is pushing for both sides for a new CBA agreement   (espn.go.com) divider line 110
    More: Obvious, NHL, obama, Obama wants  
•       •       •

798 clicks; posted to Sports » on 14 Dec 2012 at 8:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 01:06:15 PM

MugzyBrown: I believe the due to regional nature of the sport, the league model is flawed and is only 'major' US sports league that can benefit from a more European set up. Here is my plan in glorious detail:


I know you mean well, but the NHL isn't the same as beer league hockey where the team that wins the championship are automatically bumped to a higher league along with all the ringers of the other teams according to the commissioner's discretion. Anyone getting a NHLb franchise is going to want to see the marquee players, and the owners are going to groom the superstars (that put asses in seats) then kick them out the door when they get a good deal vs. rolling the dice for the playoffs, thinking that hockey fans are loyal and will come back anyway (see Columbus minus Nash, once the season starts next year) You can't have relegation at that level.
 
2012-12-14 01:33:36 PM

Comic Book Guy: I know you mean well, but the NHL isn't the same as beer league hockey where the team that wins the championship are automatically bumped to a higher league along with all the ringers of the other teams according to the commissioner's discretion. Anyone getting a NHLb franchise is going to want to see the marquee players, and the owners are going to groom the superstars (that put asses in seats) then kick them out the door when they get a good deal vs. rolling the dice for the playoffs, thinking that hockey fans are loyal and will come back anyway (see Columbus minus Nash, once the season starts next year) You can't have relegation at that level.


It seems to work well in many different sports around the world
 
2012-12-14 01:51:39 PM
Time to write this one off and look for next year.

OT: the CBJ players have apparently found their playing level, as their AHL affiliate is rocking right now. Too bad the farm team is 700 miles from Columbus or I'd watch a game.

/Would be a helluva lot cheaper, too
 
2012-12-14 01:52:12 PM

IAmRight: Flappyhead: The other week when it was direct talks between owners and players, the latter was shocked to find out just how many of the former had no frigging idea what had been discussed and proposed since the lockout began.

In fairness, it's also in their interest to paint the owners as completely incompetent as a group within the media. And it's not like Fehr's groups have been worried about being honest in the media throughout this whole deal (see: pretending deals were imminent over and over).


I think the media has been fair about demonizing the stupidity of both sides. The owners started this mess in the name of running up the score though, so this one is on them.
 
2012-12-14 01:53:41 PM

MugzyBrown: Comic Book Guy: I know you mean well, but the NHL isn't the same as beer league hockey where the team that wins the championship are automatically bumped to a higher league along with all the ringers of the other teams according to the commissioner's discretion. Anyone getting a NHLb franchise is going to want to see the marquee players, and the owners are going to groom the superstars (that put asses in seats) then kick them out the door when they get a good deal vs. rolling the dice for the playoffs, thinking that hockey fans are loyal and will come back anyway (see Columbus minus Nash, once the season starts next year) You can't have relegation at that level.

It seems to work well in many different sports around the world


Disagree. 75% of the teams in the top European soccer leagues have no chance to win the championship before their seasons even start. Disparity is not the answer.
 
2012-12-14 01:55:04 PM

PowerSlacker: I think the media has been fair about demonizing the stupidity of both sides. The owners started this mess in the name of running up the score though, so this one is on them.


The owners started it, so the players should have, what, just rolled over? Where's the stupidity on the players' side that should be demonized? AFAIK, the owners are the ones that screwed up and want the players to bail them out.
 
2012-12-14 01:55:25 PM

MugzyBrown: It seems to work well in many different sports around the world


No, it really doesn't.
 
2012-12-14 01:56:36 PM
No, it really doesn't.

When was the last time the EPL didn't have a season?
 
2012-12-14 01:58:37 PM

MugzyBrown: No, it really doesn't.

When was the last time the EPL didn't have a season?


Oh, right, relegation is totally the reason for that.
 
2012-12-14 01:59:18 PM

Galloping Galoshes: PowerSlacker: I think the media has been fair about demonizing the stupidity of both sides. The owners started this mess in the name of running up the score though, so this one is on them.

The owners started it, so the players should have, what, just rolled over? Where's the stupidity on the players' side that should be demonized? AFAIK, the owners are the ones that screwed up and want the players to bail them out.


I'm on the same side as you, but the players aren't totally blameless.
 
2012-12-14 02:00:45 PM

MugzyBrown: No, it really doesn't.

When was the last time the EPL didn't have a season?


When is the last time the EPL had a competitive season with a surprise champion?
 
2012-12-14 02:01:37 PM

PowerSlacker: I think the media has been fair about demonizing the stupidity of both sides. The owners started this mess in the name of running up the score though, so this one is on them.


I'm not talking about what the media has done. I'm just saying it's in the interests of both sides to make the other side look weak in the media. So there's no point in believing anything you hear until a deal is actually done. And even then, I'd still probably wait until the games actually start.
 
2012-12-14 02:07:16 PM

IAmRight: PowerSlacker: I think the media has been fair about demonizing the stupidity of both sides. The owners started this mess in the name of running up the score though, so this one is on them.

I'm not talking about what the media has done. I'm just saying it's in the interests of both sides to make the other side look weak in the media. So there's no point in believing anything you hear until a deal is actually done. And even then, I'd still probably wait until the games actually start.


I agree that both sides are engaging in the usual bullshiat posturing. Still, this mess is all on Bettman, Jacobs, et al.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:35 PM

PowerSlacker: Still, this mess is all on Bettman, Jacobs, et al.


I doubt Bettman wants a lockout - it goes against his personal interests and the interest of the league as a whole. But it's not like commissioners really get to do whatever they want.

Then again, fans get all upset about how they're never coming back...and yet they jumped on and the NHL became more profitable than ever after 2004. So can you really blame 'em for thinking that you'll all come back, no matter how much they ignore you as fans?
 
2012-12-14 02:14:16 PM

PowerSlacker: Galloping Galoshes: PowerSlacker: I think the media has been fair about demonizing the stupidity of both sides. The owners started this mess in the name of running up the score though, so this one is on them.

The owners started it, so the players should have, what, just rolled over? Where's the stupidity on the players' side that should be demonized? AFAIK, the owners are the ones that screwed up and want the players to bail them out.

I'm on the same side as you, but the players aren't totally blameless.


So what would you blame them for?
 
2012-12-14 02:16:37 PM

PowerSlacker: MugzyBrown: No, it really doesn't.

When was the last time the EPL didn't have a season?

When is the last time the EPL had a competitive season with a surprise champion?


Well last year's season came out a tie, that's pretty competitive.

I'd rather have a season with an unsurprising result than no season what so ever.

IAmRight: Oh, right, relegation is totally the reason for that


Forcing teams who can't afford players to spend money on players has caused a lockout and missed season twice in the past 7 years.

So would you rather have 30 average teams who are competitive, but 10 of them bankrupt and no seas, or a handful of really good teams who actually play hockey?
 
2012-12-14 02:19:48 PM

MugzyBrown: Forcing teams who can't afford players to spend money on players has caused a lockout and missed season twice in the past 7 years.

So would you rather have 30 average teams who are competitive, but 10 of them bankrupt and no seas, or a handful of really good teams who actually play hockey?


The problem is revenue disparity. The obvious solutions are either revenue sharing or contraction, but the NHL owners aren't serious about either of those solutions. They chose to overexpand and they aren't willing to deal with the consequences of overexpansion.
 
2012-12-14 02:21:07 PM

IAmRight: I doubt Bettman wants a lockout - it goes against his personal interests and the interest of the league as a whole. But it's not like commissioners really get to do whatever they want.


As long as Gary Bruce Bettman continues to collect his big fat seven figure salary every year, he's a part of the problem.
 
2012-12-14 02:26:28 PM

KarlMaldensNose: kdawg7736: I wish they could just resolve this whole darn thing. I hope I don't have to resort to just college basketball or even the NBA this winter.

The most frustrating thing is that they seem to be pretty close. However, no one seems to want to move from their positions at this point. It feels like the douchiest game of chicken ever.


Agree. Give a little and get a lot in return. The NFL realized this last year and they got a CBA done.
 
2012-12-14 02:31:22 PM

MugzyBrown: So would you rather have 30 average teams who are competitive, but 10 of them bankrupt and no seas, or a handful of really good teams who actually play hockey?


I really don't care because I enjoy junior hockey (also no work stoppages!) far more than I've ever enjoyed the NHL, and I prefer basketball to hockey anyway. But yes, I prefer a league where each team within the league has an opportunity to win, rather than one where the bottom teams are constantly churning because it's impossible to actually build up to excellence when a bad year will hold you back.

There simply isn't enough support for the teams to continue to exist if they are split off into two leagues. Especially not in America. Maybe hockey can go become what curling is, relatively popular at Winter Olympics and ignored for the rest of the time.
 
2012-12-14 02:33:14 PM

Galloping Galoshes: swahnhennessy: Galloping Galoshes: You mean like the old 6 team league?

Yes, that would be boring.

With 6 teams, the NHL would no longer be considered a major sport. The $ would shrink incredibly, and the sport would go the way of boxing and horse racing.


Getting more attention on ESPN than hockey? That seems like a good direction
 
2012-12-14 02:37:55 PM

PowerSlacker: MugzyBrown: Forcing teams who can't afford players to spend money on players has caused a lockout and missed season twice in the past 7 years.

So would you rather have 30 average teams who are competitive, but 10 of them bankrupt and no seas, or a handful of really good teams who actually play hockey?

The problem is revenue disparity. The obvious solutions are either revenue sharing or contraction, but the NHL owners aren't serious about either of those solutions. They chose to overexpand and they aren't willing to deal with the consequences of overexpansion.


The source of the revenue disparity is a big part of the problem. The most successful teams have regional networks, and they want to hang onto them. In lieu of ceding all network income to the league for equal distribution, revenue sharing is a must. Even if the worst teams are contracted. Personally I'd like to see those teams continue. It will take a couple decades, but eventually those liabilities will turn into assets.
 
2012-12-14 02:39:46 PM
By the way, losing $150 million to win a title is a terrible sports business model. Link
 
2012-12-14 02:42:35 PM

PowerSlacker: By the way, losing $150 million to win a title is a terrible sports business model. Link

 
2012-12-14 02:43:36 PM

PowerSlacker: By the way, losing $150 million to win a title is a terrible sports business model. Link


Sorry, posted too soon.
Your mistake is to believe this is a business. It's not, it's a hobby for the super-rich. Once you understand that, a lot becomes clear.
 
2012-12-14 02:56:35 PM
As far as this season goes, coming from a Columbus local, I hope they cancel it. I have plenty of friends who were wooed into buying season tickets or game packs to a mediocre team just so they can have first crack at the All-Star Game, and now that's been taken from them. Cancel it all and allow them to get their money back. At this point, almost half of the season (42.8%) is gone anyway, is there much point in playing anymore?
 
2012-12-14 03:11:09 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Your mistake is to believe this is a business. It's not, it's a hobby for the super-rich. Once you understand that, a lot becomes clear.


Depends - the EPL, for some, is a hobby.

American sports, it's completely become a business, whereas it used to be a dick-waving contest for the super-rich.
 
2012-12-14 03:30:16 PM

Galloping Galoshes: The source of the revenue disparity is a big part of the problem. The most successful teams have regional networks, and they want to hang onto them. In lieu of ceding all network income to the league for equal distribution, revenue sharing is a must. Even if the worst teams are contracted. Personally I'd like to see those teams continue. It will take a couple decades, but eventually those liabilities will turn into assets.


What about arena fees? I'm kinda curious about how that works among the different franchises. For example, the Rangers and Bruins own their own arenas (or are owned by the same people that own the arena) and would presumably pull in all the revenue that those arenas generate, contributing to the overall health of the club. But teams like the Isles and Devils are renting arenas from other groups with no ownership interest, so would presumably only get their own gate receipts and have to pay rent on top. Then you have publicly financed arenas like Pittsburgh and Minnesota - what's the revenue deal like for those places?

In other words, is arena ownership another element in the financial instability of some franchises? I know that gates from Scottrade in St. Louis have kept the Blues afloat for quite a while, since they were pulling in plenty of other events and the arena is owned by the club.
 
2012-12-14 03:38:09 PM

phyrkrakr: Galloping Galoshes: The source of the revenue disparity is a big part of the problem. The most successful teams have regional networks, and they want to hang onto them. In lieu of ceding all network income to the league for equal distribution, revenue sharing is a must. Even if the worst teams are contracted. Personally I'd like to see those teams continue. It will take a couple decades, but eventually those liabilities will turn into assets.

What about arena fees? I'm kinda curious about how that works among the different franchises. For example, the Rangers and Bruins own their own arenas (or are owned by the same people that own the arena) and would presumably pull in all the revenue that those arenas generate, contributing to the overall health of the club. But teams like the Isles and Devils are renting arenas from other groups with no ownership interest, so would presumably only get their own gate receipts and have to pay rent on top. Then you have publicly financed arenas like Pittsburgh and Minnesota - what's the revenue deal like for those places?

In other words, is arena ownership another element in the financial instability of some franchises? I know that gates from Scottrade in St. Louis have kept the Blues afloat for quite a while, since they were pulling in plenty of other events and the arena is owned by the club.


Yes, it is. The Caps were bleeding cash until Leonsis got control of Verizon Center. Of course, the owners can hold the arena in one pocket, and have it charge rent, etc, to the hockey team in the other pocket, and the hockey team is always in financial straits.
 
2012-12-14 03:39:24 PM

Galloping Galoshes: The source of the revenue disparity is a big part of the problem. The most successful teams have regional networks, and they want to hang onto them. In lieu of ceding all network income to the league for equal distribution, revenue sharing is a must. Even if the worst teams are contracted. Personally I'd like to see those teams continue. It will take a couple decades, but eventually those liabilities will turn into assets.


This is true, and this is why expansion wasn't a terrible idea. The problem is that there are people thinking long-term about the health of the league (sadly, Bettman actually falls into this camp), but the vast majority of people are focused on their personal desires and what benefits them in the short-term (both owners and players; at least the players are understandably fixated on this as they have only a short while to get what they can and don't really have a whole lot of other options that are as lucrative. Owners are already filthy rich whether or not they're profiting off their franchise.)

Bettman's problem in this case, IMO, is that he is thinking too far forward and ignoring the fact that virtually no one cares about the long-term if the short-term gets shot to hell. He's done a great job making the league more visible and more profitable than it had ever been, but greedy short-termers are f*cking killing everything.
 
2012-12-14 03:41:10 PM

PowerSlacker: By the way, losing $150 million to win a title is a terrible sports business model. Link


HA! I was coming here just to link that story.
 
2012-12-14 04:25:43 PM

IAmRight: Galloping Galoshes: The source of the revenue disparity is a big part of the problem. The most successful teams have regional networks, and they want to hang onto them. In lieu of ceding all network income to the league for equal distribution, revenue sharing is a must. Even if the worst teams are contracted. Personally I'd like to see those teams continue. It will take a couple decades, but eventually those liabilities will turn into assets.

This is true, and this is why expansion wasn't a terrible idea. The problem is that there are people thinking long-term about the health of the league (sadly, Bettman actually falls into this camp), but the vast majority of people are focused on their personal desires and what benefits them in the short-term (both owners and players; at least the players are understandably fixated on this as they have only a short while to get what they can and don't really have a whole lot of other options that are as lucrative. Owners are already filthy rich whether or not they're profiting off their franchise.)

Bettman's problem in this case, IMO, is that he is thinking too far forward and ignoring the fact that virtually no one cares about the long-term if the short-term gets shot to hell. He's done a great job making the league more visible and more profitable than it had ever been, but greedy short-termers are f*cking killing everything.


If he truly had the league's long-term interest at heart, he wouldn't be a part of the ongoing efforts by the owners to fark the game over.
 
2012-12-14 04:28:31 PM

dokool: gretzkyscores: While he certainly has the right to express his opinion, I'd be shocked if the President (or virtually ANY politician for that matter) could name 5 NHL teams, 5 star players, or describe what the blue lines on the ice are for.

I guess not knowing much about a given subject has never stopped a politician from opining on it...

Obama would name the Canadians and Leafs and then Republicans would be pissed that he couldn't remember whether or not Phoenix and Atlanta still had franchises.


Well considering the Thrashers aren't around anymore.
 
2012-12-14 04:34:24 PM

PowerSlacker: If he truly had the league's long-term interest at heart, he wouldn't be a part of the ongoing efforts by the owners to fark the game over.


You're right, he's clearly going to go tell his bosses what to do.
 
2012-12-14 04:50:47 PM

IAmRight: PowerSlacker: If he truly had the league's long-term interest at heart, he wouldn't be a part of the ongoing efforts by the owners to fark the game over.

You're right, he's clearly going to go tell his bosses what to do.


Or he could just be content with the 50+ million dollars he's been paid for his "services" to date and just step aside with a shred of integrity left.

He's perfectly happy to take the money and be the tool of the owners.
 
2012-12-14 05:41:42 PM
Is Obama president of Canada now, who cares? I cared the last time they cancelled a season but now I want to see the NHL go down in flames for their greed and stupidity.
 
2012-12-14 05:49:27 PM

TheJoe03: Is Obama president of Canada now, who cares? I cared the last time they cancelled a season but now I want to see the NHL go down in flames for their greed and stupidity.


Not yet. But he will be. How else do you think he'll get elected to four terms just like FDR did. Canada saw it's greatest economic expansion ever when FDR took over as Prime Minister and personally helmed the daily operations of the Maple Syrup mines, hockey puck farms, and aboot factories.
 
2012-12-14 06:02:21 PM

soopey: TheJoe03: Is Obama president of Canada now, who cares? I cared the last time they cancelled a season but now I want to see the NHL go down in flames for their greed and stupidity.

Not yet. But he will be. How else do you think he'll get elected to four terms just like FDR did. Canada saw it's greatest economic expansion ever when FDR took over as Prime Minister and personally helmed the daily operations of the Maple Syrup mines, hockey puck farms, and aboot factories.


Not to mention his revolutionary baby seal clubbing techniques.
 
2012-12-14 06:04:12 PM

Galloping Galoshes: phyrkrakr: Galloping Galoshes: The source of the revenue disparity is a big part of the problem. The most successful teams have regional networks, and they want to hang onto them. In lieu of ceding all network income to the league for equal distribution, revenue sharing is a must. Even if the worst teams are contracted. Personally I'd like to see those teams continue. It will take a couple decades, but eventually those liabilities will turn into assets.

What about arena fees? I'm kinda curious about how that works among the different franchises. For example, the Rangers and Bruins own their own arenas (or are owned by the same people that own the arena) and would presumably pull in all the revenue that those arenas generate, contributing to the overall health of the club. But teams like the Isles and Devils are renting arenas from other groups with no ownership interest, so would presumably only get their own gate receipts and have to pay rent on top. Then you have publicly financed arenas like Pittsburgh and Minnesota - what's the revenue deal like for those places?

In other words, is arena ownership another element in the financial instability of some franchises? I know that gates from Scottrade in St. Louis have kept the Blues afloat for quite a while, since they were pulling in plenty of other events and the arena is owned by the club.

Yes, it is. The Caps were bleeding cash until Leonsis got control of Verizon Center. Of course, the owners can hold the arena in one pocket, and have it charge rent, etc, to the hockey team in the other pocket, and the hockey team is always in financial straits.


That's what was going on in Phoenix to a disgusting degree.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have the Panthers owning the BAC in Sunrise, and are swimming in the black. Seriously, despite what Canadian journalists claim, they're one of the richest teams in the league.
 
2012-12-14 06:56:12 PM
welp, it's headed to the courts now
 
2012-12-14 07:01:56 PM

The Bestest: welp, it's headed to the courts now


Good. One step closer to a resolution.
 
2012-12-14 07:40:51 PM

drunk_bouncnbaloruber:
At the other end of the spectrum, you have the Panthers owning the BAC in Sunrise, and are swimming in the black. Seriously, despite what Canadian journalists claim, they're one of the richest teams in the league.


Except that's a very elaborate accounting game being played by the parent company. Mind you it's a great example as to why the BoG has been so adamant about having very restrictive definitions as to what hockey related revenues are. This is an intresting read on the subject. Link
 
2012-12-14 07:49:56 PM

gretzkyscores: While he certainly has the right to express his opinion, I'd be shocked if the President (or virtually ANY politician for that matter) could name 5 NHL teams, 5 star players, or describe what the blue lines on the ice are for.

I guess not knowing much about a given subject has never stopped a politician from opining on it...


Stephen Harper's actually a pretty big hockey fan. And not just in a "politician kissing a baby" kind of way. Link

There's already a pretty big shiatstorm between the teacher's union and the Ontario provincial government though, so this is probably too close to the heat for him to step into.
 
2012-12-14 08:05:51 PM

dancindan84: There's already a pretty big shiatstorm between the teacher's union and the Ontario provincial government though, so this is probably too close to the heat for him to step into.


the same teacher's union that used to own the Leafs?
 
2012-12-14 08:14:51 PM

The Bestest: dancindan84: There's already a pretty big shiatstorm between the teacher's union and the Ontario provincial government though, so this is probably too close to the heat for him to step into.

the same teacher's union that used to own the Leafs?


Technically I think it was their pension fund that owned the Leafs, but yeah. The union was all ready to lay down and take some cuts because they realized the economy was crap (a lot of the local chapters already had acceptable deals with their local boards), and the provincial government passed legislation taking away their right to strike.

Like I said, there really didn't seem to be a big threat of a strike or any real problems, it was just politicians trying to score points by acting tough. Unfortunately, it seems they managed to materialize a big pile of shiat for themselves to step in. Then the Premier (provincial party leader) resigned and prorogued (suspended) the provincial government, so that any resolution to the shiatpile isn't even really possible.

Oh, and the party that took a shiat on the union was the liberal party, usually very pro-union and likewise the union pro-liberal. They kicked one of their biggest supporters in the balls, took their ball and went home. It's nuts.
 
2012-12-14 08:24:39 PM

bluorangefyre: I blame Donald Fehr just because the man should still, 18 years later, be dragged out into the streets of Montreal and flogged for the baseball strike ruining their one and only shot at glory. Nevermind the fact that the owners and Bettman are the ones who locked the players out, I hold Donald Fehr 110% responsible for this mess, no matter how right he might actually be this time.


Well, you can take your mentally deranged bias out the door with you, because it's corrupted, broken views like yours that pollute the information stream and cloud the reality of the situation. 

And Monteral lost the Expos because even a decade after the MLB righted the ship, the bitter Francophiles up in Montreal still wouldn't come back and support the franchise.
 
2012-12-14 08:32:37 PM

IAmRight: Flappyhead: The other week when it was direct talks between owners and players, the latter was shocked to find out just how many of the former had no frigging idea what had been discussed and proposed since the lockout began.

In fairness, it's also in their interest to paint the owners as completely incompetent as a group within the media. And it's not like Fehr's groups have been worried about being honest in the media throughout this whole deal (see: pretending deals were imminent over and over).


EXCEPT....

This were statements directly from players who were at the table. It does not behoove them to lie, and if Fehr learned anything from Marvin Miller, he didn't and hasn't asked them to. The players didn't even paint the owners as incompetent; they merely stated that it was obvious that the group of owners who were in charge of negotiating were not disseminating information to the rest of the BoG.

I also suspect they were, in fact, close to a deal; the NHL became hostile when the players wanted the representative they were legally entitled to
at the table.to to the job he was hired to do. The lion's share of the blame for this mess falls on the owners shoulders for being almost completely unwilling to negotiate with Donald Fehr in good faith. Because goodness knows, they might ACTUALLY have to comprise if they did that.
 
2012-12-14 08:41:22 PM

MugzyBrown: PowerSlacker: MugzyBrown: No, it really doesn't.

When was the last time the EPL didn't have a season?

When is the last time the EPL had a competitive season with a surprise champion?

Well last year's season came out a tie, that's pretty competitive.

I'd rather have a season with an unsurprising result than no season what so ever.

IAmRight: Oh, right, relegation is totally the reason for that

Forcing teams who can't afford players to spend money on players has caused a lockout and missed season twice in the past 7 years.

So would you rather have 30 average teams who are competitive, but 10 of them bankrupt and no seas, or a handful of really good teams who actually play hockey?


What the hell are you blathering about?

First off: the owners sign those contracts of their own volition No one holds a gun to their heads and forces them to do so.

Second: The NHL is in the midst of a huge growth period, so crying poor months after signing large contracts BY CHOICE is complete horseshiat.

Third: No one truly has an accurate and complete picture of the league finances except for the owners - and they aren't sharing. "Bu-but-but FORBES MAGAZINE!!" you say? Educated guesses built upon educated guesses. Forbes doesn't have access to all of the information, either.

Fourth: Relegation is the most idiotic system. It only works in soccer because soccer was around it. Try to instill in the NHL would be tantamount to demoting teams to the AHL, which is far more idiotic than it sounds.

Got anymore bright thoughts, Bowie Kuhn?
 
2012-12-14 08:42:50 PM

FiendishFellow05: The lion's share of the blame for this mess falls on the owners shoulders for being almost completely unwilling to negotiate with Donald Fehr in good faith.


Which is funny because that's exactly what the NHL is accusing the union of (not negotiating in good faith) in their court filing today.
 
2012-12-14 08:51:23 PM
It does differ slightly depending on which professional league, but, yeah...pretty much.

What Frank McCourt pulled as owner of the Dodgers deserves its own movie. And, again, he walked away from the sale with roughly $1billion in actual profit. Use your team as a personal credit card, cut your scouting department funds and payroll to help cover for your outright criminal behavior, and yet at the end of it, walk into the sunset with a "haters gonna hate" gait in your step because you can pay off all your debts and still buy an entire country if you so wish.

Obviously, a market like LA will have a sizable effect on the valuation compared to a team in, say, Columbus, but for the love of God I hope no one seriously equates the "risk" of purchasing and running a professional sports team to what 99% of other business owners in the world today face. There's nothing "eat the rich" about pointing out teams are not "businesses" so much as toys to many owners.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report