If the NHL wants to make money off of me they should just stop being a bunch of babies and figure out a deal to have the real players.

I thought ticket prices were HRR?

I'm not bright though

- jimbro83

But you've got it backwards:

Ticket prices affect salaries.

But salaries do not affect ticket prices.

And further, it's ticket prices across the entire league that affect salaries - you can't say that it applies to local markets.

Can people stop saying these players are greedy (as both side are, hence this lock-out) because they make millions a year and they should be happy, or you would be happy playing for $60K a year....Im sure the owners would love to sign you for that but you suck and thats why you dont play in the NHL....Yes the players are rich but they are the best talent in the world and the hardest working of all sports (IMO) and if it wasnt for them we would have nothing to talk about around the water cooler....im not saying they are innocent but come on, get real, they risk their ass everytime they play and are the worlds elite players for a reason and its hark work to get there

jimbro, prock.. stop the adolescent crap now.

just because you dont agree doesnt mean you have to be rude to each other.

jimbro, prock.. stop the adolescent crap now.

just because you dont agree doesnt mean you have to be rude to each other.
- Dozzer

hey, he brought the wife into it

hey, he brought the wife into it
- jimbro83

and you responded.

regardless.. cut the poop and get back to hockey

and you responded.

regardless.. cut the poop and get back to hockey
- Dozzer

yes sir

anyway, this is all the owners fault

Joe Bowen would be completely against this! He already can't even get the names right of the leafs players, let alone 50 new players on any given night.

He'd most likely suffer from some sort nervous breakdown!

jimbro, prock.. stop the adolescent crap now.

just because you dont agree doesnt mean you have to be rude to each other.
- Dozzer

Hits the point home though, doesn't it.

I just don't get how anybody can be naive enough to think that it's a reasonable solution just continue under the current contract. It's just another PR ploy.

i wish i had someting more original to say here, but both sides are at fault. yes the players are the ones we pay to see, but the owners take all the financial risk to make a profit. all said and done, it's a business. if i didn't have so much heart vested in the rangers, i would say the hell with the whole lot.

i said this in another thread: roll back the cap back, but only apply it to trades/free agent signings. if you draft a player and develop him through your system, not a penny of it should count towards the cap.

An honest question...

EK, would you be cool with it if all of the "regulars" who contribute to the volume/traffic in HB's blogs/threads on a daily basis, who in turn generate revenue for the site and who purchase "season tickets" were replaced? Replaced by someone who knows little to nothing about hockey, has little to zero interest in HB, who wouldn't post as often, who wouldn't visit the site on a regular basis and certainly wouldn't consider purchasing a "season ticket," would you be OK with this?

Using a warm body aka "replacements" isn't the answer.

The idea of using replacements is a weak bluff and is destined to fail. This whole idea would only do more damage to an already fragile league.

Hits the point home though, doesn't it.

I just don't get how anybody can be naive enough to think that it's a reasonable solution just continue under the current contract. It's just another PR ploy.
- prock

and i agree with you

revenue and profit are two entirely different things

if it were 57% of profit then i'd say the players are being reasonable

but they want 57% of revenue, which, if i am not mistaken, is counted before operating costs have been applied.

if i am right for example, if a team earned 100 million dollars, and lets say operating costs were 40million, the players still receive 57million, leaving 3million for the owners, and people wonder why the owners take issue with this?

feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

i wish i had someting more original to say here, but both sides are at fault. yes the players are the ones we pay to see, but the owners take all the financial risk to make a profit. all said and done, it's a business. if i didn't have so much heart vested in the rangers, i would say the hell with the whole lot.

i said this in another thread: roll back the cap back, but only apply it to trades/free agent signings. if you draft a player and develop him through your system, not a penny of it should count towards the cap.
- Why So Serious

greatest idea ever

and i agree with you

revenue and profit are two entirely different things

- Dozzer

well, yeah.

if it were 57% of profit then i'd say the players are being reasonable

but they want 57% of revenue, which, if i am not mistaken, is counted before operating costs have been applied.

- Dozzer

Yup. Who knows what the fair amount is. But it's pretty clear it's lower than the current %, IMO. How far, I don't know. The thing is, a very small change in % of revenue can make a very big difference in profit, depending on some things.

It might be difficult to put in a system that depends on profit though. What if there is a net loss?

if i am right for example, if a team earned 100 million dollars, and lets say operating costs were 40million, the players still receive 57million, leaving 3million for the owners, and people wonder why the owners take issue with this?

feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
- Dozzer

Yep, that's exactly correct. It's not done on a team by team basis though, it's done on the league as a whole. And what I was talking about earlier, a 3% drop to 54% doubles the team's profit.

i wish i had someting more original to say here, but both sides are at fault. yes the players are the ones we pay to see, but the owners take all the financial risk to make a profit. all said and done, it's a business. if i didn't have so much heart vested in the rangers, i would say the hell with the whole lot.

i said this in another thread: roll back the cap back, but only apply it to trades/free agent signings. if you draft a player and develop him through your system, not a penny of it should count towards the cap.
- Why So Serious

Why is either one "at fault?"

Fans need to stop thinking this is some sort of public resource that we have a right to watch.

It's a business.

A business that right now is locked in a labour dispute.

It's none of our business. Let them work it out.

We are not at the table.

If you don't like it, stop watching. But spare me the idea that the fans have a say in the actual negotiations.

Replacement players would be great, the NHL has a great opportunity here if they so choose to exploit it, think about this.

The teams hold giant, American Idol like auditions in their home cities and a 50 mile radius. The GM, Head coach, and Head scout are the panel of judges, judging players during a televised scrimage. Then they could bring them in for 1on1 time, where the judges then give their analysis. 3-4 weeks to assemble a team of 20 players, tv crews behind the scenes all year long, player demotions would be players getting voted off by the audience.

This could be special.

well, yeah.



Yup. Who knows what the fair amount is. But it's pretty clear it's lower than the current %, IMO. How far, I don't know. The thing is, a very small change in % of revenue can make a very big difference in profit, depending on some things.

It might be difficult to put in a system that depends on profit though. What if there is a net loss?



Yep, that's exactly correct. It's not done on a team by team basis though, it's done on the league as a whole. And what I was talking about earlier, a 3% drop to 54% doubles the team's profit.
- prock

the bolded is exactly why i take issue with the players stance

they want all the honey but none of the bee stings that come along with getting it.

the players want all the advantage of ownership with none of the risk. if the players were willing to assume risk then i'd side with them, but they arent.

basically they want a huge chunk of the asset ledger and want the owners to assume the full consequence of the debit ledger. and thats just flat out absurd imo.

Replacement players would be great, the NHL has a great opportunity here if they so choose to exploit it, think about this.

The teams hold giant, American Idol like auditions in their home cities and a 50 mile radius. The GM, Head coach, and Head scout are the panel of judges, judging players during a televised scrimage. Then they could bring them in for 1on1 time, where the judges then give their analysis. 3-4 weeks to assemble a team of 20 players, tv crews behind the scenes all year long, player demotions would be players getting voted off by the audience.

This could be special.
- Leafland

Believe it or not, the CBC already did something similar.

Anyone remember what that tryout show was called?

Replacement players would be great, the NHL has a great opportunity here if they so choose to exploit it, think about this.

The teams hold giant, American Idol like auditions in their home cities and a 50 mile radius. The GM, Head coach, and Head scout are the panel of judges, judging players during a televised scrimage. Then they could bring them in for 1on1 time, where the judges then give their analysis. 3-4 weeks to assemble a team of 20 players, tv crews behind the scenes all year long, player demotions would be players getting voted off by the audience.

This could be special.
- Leafland

It would be a fn embarassment...think of the sport as a whole

Replacement players would be great, the NHL has a great opportunity here if they so choose to exploit it, think about this.

The teams hold giant, American Idol like auditions in their home cities and a 50 mile radius. The GM, Head coach, and Head scout are the panel of judges, judging players during a televised scrimage. Then they could bring them in for 1on1 time, where the judges then give their analysis. 3-4 weeks to assemble a team of 20 players, tv crews behind the scenes all year long, player demotions would be players getting voted off by the audience.

This could be special.
- Leafland

Interesting, but a fight to the death would have to somehow be incorporated.

Believe it or not, the CBC already did something similar.

Anyone remember what that tryout show was called?
- Atomic Wedgie

"Making the Cut?"

"Making the Cut?"
- As_I_See_It

Ding ding ding - we have a winner!

Thanks - that was going to bug me all day.

I'm going to have to Google up what ever became of the winners.

"Making the Cut?"
- As_I_See_It

From a quick peek at Wikipedia, the second year the show ran on Global television, and a guy named David Brine didn't win the show, but impressed Keenan enough that he signed him to a contract with the Panthers.

He played 9 games for the Panthers.

http://www.hockeydb.com/i...ts/pdisplay.php?pid=73179

Go Replacement Players Go. Bring 'em on!

This is def mostly a Players issue. I support the owners 100%.

I support the Jersey not the player. I cheered for Koivu for years, he was a god in Montreal. He is still respected but not many go out of their way to watch a Ducks game to see him now. Why? Because we don't cheer for the Ducks, we cheer for the Habs. Leaf fans, did you watch Canuck games to see Sundin and cheer them on? I bet most didn't.