CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gardensupporter. Show Gardensupporter's posts

    CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    Announcement this afternoon

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    That's a minimum 24 per cent decrease in revenues this season for the players. Great negotiating NHLPA.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's a minimum 24 per cent decrease in revenues this season for the players. Great negotiating NHLPA.

    [/QUOTE]

    The NHLPA are the only ones attempting to negotiate. The owners latest "proposal" was essentially a "take it or leave it" offer. It takes 2 willing sides to have any negotiations work. I'm not sure what you're expecting of the players.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    No we wait... for Ovechkin to say something stupid.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    dez, the players have no leverage. With the cancelation of October and November games the players have already lost more money than they would have this year if they had accepted the owners original proposal. And the owners have moved, which is a form of negotiation - now they're at 50/50.

    That said my point is that the NHLPA's inability to accept a deal, and their lack of leverage, has now cost their union members more money this year than they were facing losing at the start of this process. That's a lousy way to do business.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    dez, the players have no leverage. With the cancelation of October and November games the players have already lost more money than they would have this year if they had accepted the owners original proposal. And the owners have moved, which is a form of negotiation - now they're at 50/50.

    That said my point is that the NHLPA's inability to accept a deal, and their lack of leverage, has now cost their union members more money this year than they were facing losing at the start of this process. That's a lousy way to do business.

    [/QUOTE]  Why should the players have to give back money  ( 13 % ) on contracts that have already been signed ? Were they not done in good faith.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/extras/bruins_blog/2012/10/bruins_thornton.html

    Thornton, contacted by Toronto-based Josh Rimer (@joshrimerhockey), noted his frustration over a Collective Bargaining process that has yet to yield an agreement between the league's owners and players.

    " We keep trying to meet, " Thornton said, tweeted by @joshrimerhockey. " They keep declining. They are obviously not willing to negotiate. "

    " They would rather put the game in jeopardy and try to strongarm us and shake us down. "

     

    Well if skating clown says owners are at fault then...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    Just put the season with a broken leg down already.  At this point I hope the players hold firm and they cancel this season and next and the one after that. I pray both parties lose it all. They obviously don't give a rat's patootie about the fans.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's a minimum 24 per cent decrease in revenues this season for the players. Great negotiating NHLPA.

    [/QUOTE]

    The NHLPA are the only ones attempting to negotiate. The owners latest "proposal" was essentially a "take it or leave it" offer. It takes 2 willing sides to have any negotiations work. I'm not sure what you're expecting of the players.

    [/QUOTE]


    BINGO!!!!

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    I'm not siding with the league or the PA -- I'm just exploring some numbers.

    According to Forbes, the Winnipeg Jets generated $71.0m of revenues in 2011-12.  According to nhlnumbers.com, their salary cap hit was $51.9m.  Also from Forbes, their net income was -$5.2m, so (through simple arithmetic) their other non-salary expenses were $24.3m.  All this, for a franchise that True North paid $170m for (including a $60m relocation fee to the NHL).

    So, the investors of True North paid $170m for the privilege of losing $5.2m in their first full year of NHL operations.  This in a market where they sold out the building every night, and the fans pay the second highest average ticket price in the league (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/26/nhl-prices-hit-canadians-hardest). 

    It seems to me that the NHL is in an economically unsustainable situation right now, when a team like the Jets can't break even.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to jpBsSoxFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why should the players have to give back money  ( 13 % ) on contracts that have already been signed ? Were they not done in good faith.

    [/QUOTE]

    Every contract states that it can be changed with a change in the CBA.  Why should the players not honor their contracts?  Weren't they signed in good faith?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to 49-North's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not siding with the league or the PA -- I'm just exploring some numbers.

    According to Forbes, the Winnipeg Jets generated $71.0m of revenues in 2011-12.  According to nhlnumbers.com, their salary cap hit was $51.9m.  Also from Forbes, their net income was -$5.2m, so (through simple arithmetic) their other non-salary expenses were $24.3m.  All this, for a franchise that True North paid $170m for (including a $60m relocation fee to the NHL).

    So, the investors of True North paid $170m for the privilege of losing $5.2m in their first full year of NHL operations.  This in a market where they sold out the building every night, and the fans pay the second highest average ticket price in the league (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/26/nhl-prices-hit-canadians-hardest). 

    It seems to me that the NHL is in an economically unsustainable situation right now, when a team like the Jets can't break even.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    This is a great example of corporate smoke and mirrors.  Those numbers mislead.  If we consider a few things, it's easy to see there is much more to this.

    No arguing the numbers presented, and not suggesting anything shady, but there are dozens of "deductions" out there to minimize profit, and all good businesses exploit them.  Virtually no business records "net profit" in the first year,(or several years thereafter) and sound businesses have spin off companies and real estate companies to "avoid" profit, thus avoiding unneccessary taxes.  A business can be swimming in cash, yet showing little to no profit.  Lending institutions don't even pay that much attention to profit(positive cash flow is as big)

    Anyway, if anyone doesn't buy the above...consider this.

    It's only been about a year since a bunch of "businessmen" paid 170 mil for the Jets.  A grade 7 economics student could figure out their "income potential" in year one(41 times a sold out rink @x dollars).  His baby brother could do expenses.  Might need his 15 year old cousin to project tertiary income, and then it's all laid out. 

    How could a group of rich people be that stupid?  

    So.. the Jets were about 12 mil under the cap last year.  Had they spent to the cap, and still missed the playoffs, the deficit would be about -17.2 mil for 11/12

    Does anybody think rich business people would pay 170 million for something that pi$$ed away that kind of money, while "Sold Out" for the entire schedule?  Especially when a gaggle of accountants and laywers poured over financials just months earlier, and obviously suggested..Buy it.

    Suppose there's more to the story?

    And finally...based on the above numbers, keeping around 13% more of HHR(which the league wants immediately) still makes the team a finacial dud if we use the above numbers. 

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's a minimum 24 per cent decrease in revenues this season for the players. Great negotiating NHLPA.

    [/QUOTE]


    That's a minimum 24 percent decrease in revenues this season for the league.  Great negotiating Owners.

     

    I don't see the significance of either statement.  This is a pride thing for both sides, and the owners ensured war with their mindless opening offer.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 49-North's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not siding with the league or the PA -- I'm just exploring some numbers.

    According to Forbes, the Winnipeg Jets generated $71.0m of revenues in 2011-12.  According to nhlnumbers.com, their salary cap hit was $51.9m.  Also from Forbes, their net income was -$5.2m, so (through simple arithmetic) their other non-salary expenses were $24.3m.  All this, for a franchise that True North paid $170m for (including a $60m relocation fee to the NHL).

    So, the investors of True North paid $170m for the privilege of losing $5.2m in their first full year of NHL operations.  This in a market where they sold out the building every night, and the fans pay the second highest average ticket price in the league (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/26/nhl-prices-hit-canadians-hardest). 

    It seems to me that the NHL is in an economically unsustainable situation right now, when a team like the Jets can't break even.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    This is a great example of corporate smoke and mirrors.  Those numbers mislead.  If we consider a few things, it's easy to see there is much more to this.

    No arguing the numbers presented, and not suggesting anything shady, but there are dozens of "deductions" out there to minimize profit, and all good businesses exploit them.  Virtually no business records "net profit" in the first year,(or several years thereafter) and sound businesses have spin off companies and real estate companies to "avoid" profit, thus avoiding unneccessary taxes.  A business can be swimming in cash, yet showing little to no profit.  Lending institutions don't even pay that much attention to profit(positive cash flow is as big)

    Anyway, if anyone doesn't buy the above...consider this.

    It's only been about a year since a bunch of "businessmen" paid 170 mil for the Jets.  A grade 7 economics student could figure out their "income potential" in year one(41 times a sold out rink @x dollars).  His baby brother could do expenses.  Might need his 15 year old cousin to project tertiary income, and then it's all laid out. 

    How could a group of rich people be that stupid?  

    So.. the Jets were about 12 mil under the cap last year.  Had they spent to the cap, and still missed the playoffs, the deficit would be about -17.2 mil for 11/12

    Does anybody think rich business people would pay 170 million for something that pi$$ed away that kind of money, while "Sold Out" for the entire schedule?  Especially when a gaggle of accountants and laywers poured over financials just months earlier, and obviously suggested..Buy it.

    Suppose there's more to the story?

    And finally...based on the above numbers, keeping around 13% more of HHR(which the league wants immediately) still makes the team a finacial dud if we use the above numbers. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course there's more to the story.  But because TNSE is a private company, we're not going to see everything.  They own MTS Centre, so presumably they profit from concessions, parking, sponsorship, signage, suites, etc. How much of this is included in HRR?  If the answer is "not much", then the overall enterprise makes money, even if the hockey operations doesn't.  The situation may be more grave for teams which don't own their facilities, and thus dont' make much beyond HRR. 

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to 49-North's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 49-North's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not siding with the league or the PA -- I'm just exploring some numbers.

    According to Forbes, the Winnipeg Jets generated $71.0m of revenues in 2011-12.  According to nhlnumbers.com, their salary cap hit was $51.9m.  Also from Forbes, their net income was -$5.2m, so (through simple arithmetic) their other non-salary expenses were $24.3m.  All this, for a franchise that True North paid $170m for (including a $60m relocation fee to the NHL).

    So, the investors of True North paid $170m for the privilege of losing $5.2m in their first full year of NHL operations.  This in a market where they sold out the building every night, and the fans pay the second highest average ticket price in the league (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/26/nhl-prices-hit-canadians-hardest). 

    It seems to me that the NHL is in an economically unsustainable situation right now, when a team like the Jets can't break even.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    This is a great example of corporate smoke and mirrors.  Those numbers mislead.  If we consider a few things, it's easy to see there is much more to this.

    No arguing the numbers presented, and not suggesting anything shady, but there are dozens of "deductions" out there to minimize profit, and all good businesses exploit them.  Virtually no business records "net profit" in the first year,(or several years thereafter) and sound businesses have spin off companies and real estate companies to "avoid" profit, thus avoiding unneccessary taxes.  A business can be swimming in cash, yet showing little to no profit.  Lending institutions don't even pay that much attention to profit(positive cash flow is as big)

    Anyway, if anyone doesn't buy the above...consider this.

    It's only been about a year since a bunch of "businessmen" paid 170 mil for the Jets.  A grade 7 economics student could figure out their "income potential" in year one(41 times a sold out rink @x dollars).  His baby brother could do expenses.  Might need his 15 year old cousin to project tertiary income, and then it's all laid out. 

    How could a group of rich people be that stupid?  

    So.. the Jets were about 12 mil under the cap last year.  Had they spent to the cap, and still missed the playoffs, the deficit would be about -17.2 mil for 11/12

    Does anybody think rich business people would pay 170 million for something that pi$$ed away that kind of money, while "Sold Out" for the entire schedule?  Especially when a gaggle of accountants and laywers poured over financials just months earlier, and obviously suggested..Buy it.

    Suppose there's more to the story?

    And finally...based on the above numbers, keeping around 13% more of HHR(which the league wants immediately) still makes the team a finacial dud if we use the above numbers. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course there's more to the story.  But because TNSE is a private company, we're not going to see everything.  They own MTS Centre, so presumably they profit from concessions, parking, sponsorship, signage, suites, etc. How much of this is included in HRR?  If the answer is "not much", then the overall enterprise makes money, even if the hockey operations doesn't.  The situation may be more grave for teams which don't own their facilities, and thus dont' make much beyond HRR. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not looking to argue North, but you stated the league may be "economically unstable".  The logic for that opinion was the Jets accounting stuff above.  We know there are have nots in the league.  Always will be.  The Jets, however, aren't in that category, and we know the league overall is "very" stable.  The owners can't begin to hide that truth, so it's admitted.

    And in any business, we never, ever base it's overall health on the strength of it's weakest franchise/product.  Subway is currently ranked the #2 franchise in America right behind Hampton Inns.  Point is, there are also huge disparities in how much these businesses make, some do really well, some just squeak by, and some don't make it.  Shouldn't that work for the NHL too? 

    Seems odd to me, that, especially in something as unimportant as the entertainment business, a guaranteed profit seems reasonable to so many people.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    I see your point, stevegm, except for the Subway/Hampton analogy -- I don't see the relevance of that point to the NHL situation; but the words I used were "economically unsustainable", not "economically unstable". 

    In my opinion, and I readily admit that I (indeed, very few people) have the full financial picture of the NHL and its franchises, you DO have to consider the condition of the weakest franchises.  Because unlike Subway and its competitors, the NHL franchises are competitors on the ice (and during free agency), but are partners in business.  It does not do well to have 6 or 8 (or whatever the number) franchises constantly struggling, both financially and in the standings (because they can't spend to the cap, and lose out in free agency bidding). 

    Nobody can argue that the Phoenix situation has been good for the league.  Nobody can argue that having Columbus at the bottom of the standings each and every year is good for the league -- it will likely lead to a deteriorating fan base, disinterest, reduction of corporate support, and lower revenues, which exacerbates efforts to build a competitive team -- it's a downward spiral.

    One can argue whether owners have the right to a "guaranteed profit" (which is never the case, anyways), just as one can argue whether professional athletes "deserve" contracts which pay them more money than you, I, all of our relatives and most of our friends put together will ever see in a lifetime.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to 49-North's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see your point, stevegm, except for the Subway/Hampton analogy -- I don't see the relevance of that point to the NHL situation; but the words I used were "economically unsustainable", not "economically unstable". 

    In my opinion, and I readily admit that I (indeed, very few people) have the full financial picture of the NHL and its franchises, you DO have to consider the condition of the weakest franchises.  Because unlike Subway and its competitors, the NHL franchises are competitors on the ice (and during free agency), but are partners in business.  It does not do well to have 6 or 8 (or whatever the number) franchises constantly struggling, both financially and in the standings (because they can't spend to the cap, and lose out in free agency bidding). 

    Nobody can argue that the Phoenix situation has been good for the league.  Nobody can argue that having Columbus at the bottom of the standings each and every year is good for the league -- it will likely lead to a deteriorating fan base, disinterest, reduction of corporate support, and lower revenues, which exacerbates efforts to build a competitive team -- it's a downward spiral.

    One can argue whether owners have the right to a "guaranteed profit" (which is never the case, anyways), just as one can argue whether professional athletes "deserve" contracts which pay them more money than you, I, all of our relatives and most of our friends put together will ever see in a lifetime.

    [/QUOTE]


    My Subway point was that although, it's at the top of the heap, there are Subways that have done poorly, went bankrupt, moved, been managed terribly.  There are no guarantees in one of the best small business opportunities in the country.  Why does the NHL deserve a pass from the same realities? 

    Absolutely, there needs to be attention given to the underachievers, but simply cutting payroll while still attempting to wring every last penny out of the marketplace seems two faced.  This idea also helps the richest teams more than the poor ones.

    It seems this has to be said a lot but...Teams Don't Have To Spend To The Cap To Be Successful.  We have tons of data, going back 100 years to support this fundamental truth.

    NHL teams are competitors pretty much everywhere.  They share in some revenue that HO looks after, but in reality, they're no more partners than the 2 competing furniture stores, 4 doors apart in most towns and cities across America.  What do they really have to be partners about?

    Phoenix isn't good....nobody would argue that, but why is that team still in Phoenix.  Why does that team have to stay in Phoenix.  Would the league be better off with 29 teams?  And Columbus...in any business category, at any time in history isn't there always a Columbus out there somewhere.  Really......what does that have to do with the players.

    Anyway, they're not that far apart.  Not at all like last time.  Feel we'll see hockey early in the new year.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    My superweekend gone !  I'll still be in Boston but no Rags or Pens game back to back for Thanksgiving.

    My wife is happy I'll be spending more time with them and that equates replacing money for hockey to Christmas shopping and restaurants.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to BsLegion's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My superweekend gone !  I'll still be in Boston but no Rags or Pens game back to back for Thanksgiving.

    My wife is happy I'll be spending more time with them and that equates replacing money for hockey to Christmas shopping and restaurants.

     

    [/QUOTE]  That really sucks B's, I was there for the Thanksgiving back to backs 2 years ago. It was awesome. You would have had a great time. This really sucks for everyone. If they do have any kind of season, maybe we could hook up again for a late season game or playoff game in April. I had a blast last October when we hooked up.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

     



    My Subway point was that although, it's at the top of the heap, there are Subways that have done poorly, went bankrupt, moved, been managed terribly.  There are no guarantees in one of the best small business opportunities in the country.  Why does the NHL deserve a pass from the same realities? 

    Absolutely, there needs to be attention given to the underachievers, but simply cutting payroll while still attempting to wring every last penny out of the marketplace seems two faced.  This idea also helps the richest teams more than the poor ones.

    It seems this has to be said a lot but...Teams Don't Have To Spend To The Cap To Be Successful.  We have tons of data, going back 100 years to support this fundamental truth.

    NHL teams are competitors pretty much everywhere.  They share in some revenue that HO looks after, but in reality, they're no more partners than the 2 competing furniture stores, 4 doors apart in most towns and cities across America.  What do they really have to be partners about?

    Phoenix isn't good....nobody would argue that, but why is that team still in Phoenix.  Why does that team have to stay in Phoenix.  Would the league be better off with 29 teams?  And Columbus...in any business category, at any time in history isn't there always a Columbus out there somewhere.  Really......what does that have to do with the players.

    Anyway, they're not that far apart.  Not at all like last time.  Feel we'll see hockey early in the new year.

    _______________________________

    The NHL is a partnership sharing revenue, furniture stores is not a fair comparison (BTW didn't JJ start out in furniture).  The NHLPA is also not thinking of all the players but only to maintain an influence on the players to keep it's existance.  Neither the NHL or the NHLPA are truly businesses.  

    To add, cost accounting once again raises it's ugly head when calculating revenue for the NHL and the individual teams.  So SteveGM you are correct to criticize the Winnipeg argument posed by North.  I also agree that the two are close to agreement.  Why does it not seem that way, cause the conversations between Fehr and Bettman are not formalized in a traditional meeting format.  50/50% is correct, roll backs are not part of the picture, and a scheme of six years or so will make the two sides agree on those conditions.  Cheers, meanwhile I suffer!

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    We're all suffer'in islamorada

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    _____________________________

    The NHL is a partnership sharing revenue, furniture stores is not a fair comparison (BTW didn't JJ start out in furniture).  The NHLPA is also not thinking of all the players but only to maintain an influence on the players to keep it's existance.  Neither the NHL or the NHLPA are truly businesses.  

    To add, cost accounting once again raises it's ugly head when calculating revenue for the NHL and the individual teams.  So SteveGM you are correct to criticize the Winnipeg argument posed by North.  I also agree that the two are close to agreement.  Why does it not seem that way, cause the conversations between Fehr and Bettman are not formalized in a traditional meeting format.  50/50% is correct, roll backs are not part of the picture, and a scheme of six years or so will make the two sides agree on those conditions.  Cheers, meanwhile I suffer!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm thinkin "franchise' furniture stores, and they are a reasonable comparison.  They share in some expenses, and leverage overall economies of scale, but they're hardly partners.  They compete ferociously.  As an operating business, they do nothing to help the other in the course of normal daily activities.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    _____________________________

    The NHL is a partnership sharing revenue, furniture stores is not a fair comparison (BTW didn't JJ start out in furniture).  The NHLPA is also not thinking of all the players but only to maintain an influence on the players to keep it's existance.  Neither the NHL or the NHLPA are truly businesses.  

    To add, cost accounting once again raises it's ugly head when calculating revenue for the NHL and the individual teams.  So SteveGM you are correct to criticize the Winnipeg argument posed by North.  I also agree that the two are close to agreement.  Why does it not seem that way, cause the conversations between Fehr and Bettman are not formalized in a traditional meeting format.  50/50% is correct, roll backs are not part of the picture, and a scheme of six years or so will make the two sides agree on those conditions.  Cheers, meanwhile I suffer!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm thinkin "franchise' furniture stores, and they are a reasonable comparison.  They share in some expenses, and leverage overall economies of scale, but they're hardly partners.  They compete ferociously.  As an operating business, they do nothing to help the other in the course of normal daily activities.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree to a point, but if my wife and I need a bedroom set, we can go to Jordans, Bernie and Phyls, Bobs, and local ones.  Competition abounds, with the NHL it is the KHL.  Ahhh not the same thing imo.  Essentially the NHL has a monopoly on elite professional hockey in North America.  Now the furniture analogy is stil not the same even with the economies of scale argument.  OMG I wish I was talking about Hamilton, Seguin, and Rask rather than the efffing CBA stuff.  The thing is I understand both sides of the argument, both are logical.   

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: CBC: NHL to Cancel All November Games

    In response to islamorada's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    _____________________________

    The NHL is a partnership sharing revenue, furniture stores is not a fair comparison (BTW didn't JJ start out in furniture).  The NHLPA is also not thinking of all the players but only to maintain an influence on the players to keep it's existance.  Neither the NHL or the NHLPA are truly businesses.  

    To add, cost accounting once again raises it's ugly head when calculating revenue for the NHL and the individual teams.  So SteveGM you are correct to criticize the Winnipeg argument posed by North.  I also agree that the two are close to agreement.  Why does it not seem that way, cause the conversations between Fehr and Bettman are not formalized in a traditional meeting format.  50/50% is correct, roll backs are not part of the picture, and a scheme of six years or so will make the two sides agree on those conditions.  Cheers, meanwhile I suffer!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm thinkin "franchise' furniture stores, and they are a reasonable comparison.  They share in some expenses, and leverage overall economies of scale, but they're hardly partners.  They compete ferociously.  As an operating business, they do nothing to help the other in the course of normal daily activities.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree to a point, but if my wife and I need a bedroom set, we can go to Jordans, Bernie and Phyls, Bobs, and local ones.  Competition abounds, with the NHL it is the KHL.  Ahhh not the same thing imo.  Essentially the NHL has a monopoly on elite professional hockey in North America.  Now the furniture analogy is stil not the same even with the economies of scale argument.  OMG I wish I was talking about Hamilton, Seguin, and Rask rather than the efffing CBA stuff.  The thing is I understand both sides of the argument, both are logical.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Can't have much of a conversation with that philosophy.   :)

     

Share