Furthermore, if I'm an owner, I'm not going to be overly happy about the prospect of investing hundreds of millions of dollars, with very little likelihood of making a profit. What incentive is there to be an owner in this environment? It's not surprising they're pushing for a lower %.

If you're an owner, wouldn't you do the same thing?
- prock

But the owners don't count a lot of the outside revenue the teams earn as profit. They make the numbers say what they need. Based on player salaries the owners get screwed. But they still get concessions, parking (if the arena has it), and whatever other income is generated. Investments are risky sometimes money is lost. The owners new what they were buying into so when they whine about profit I have no pity. Apparently these guys know money and investing or they wouldn't be in the position to buy a team.


No pity for the players either they get enough pay to be comfortable during their career it's up to them to take care of their earnings and save or invest because their careers won't last forever. Not to mention all the per-diem hotel rooms cars and other expenses the team pays for to get these guys from the beginning to end of the season.

Really this is what makes me most frustrated, to me neither side has a leg to stand on and both are spending their time trying to get me to feel sorry for them. They chose a public relations campaign instead of fixing the problem. In a year in which politics are being force fed to America through presidential elections. The last thing I wanted was to sit and listen to a silly political fight in the sport I love.
FU LOCKOUT.

so you want me to get excited because someone answered the phone the first time you called??

Destroy it??? LOL. Revenue has absolutely skyrocketed under Bettman.
- prock

Some of it due to a weaker dollar versus the canadian dollar

In 2004 it was (about) 1 CAN $ for .80 US$

Now its about even. 1 CAN $ for about 1 US dollar. considering Canadians spend way more on hockey than american i would say that this is a problem.

What’s wrong with the list of winners? Three original six teams. The LA Kings first cup. Looks like a good list to me.

What, are you angry as a Rangers fan that your franchise can no longer try to buy a cup?
- prock

no Cup awarded, 2004-05, that is your boy Gary Bettman's legacy.

This has nothing to do with the Rangers.

Some of it due to a weaker dollar versus the canadian dollar

In 2004 it was (about) 1 CAN $ for .80 US$

Now its about even. 1 CAN $ for about 1 US dollar. considering Canadians spend way more on hockey than american i would say that this is a problem.
- Philly1980

That’s true, some of it can be accounted for by an appreciating CDN dollar. A pretty small portion though.

What’s wrong with the list of winners? Three original six teams. The LA Kings first cup. Looks like a good list to me.

What, are you angry as a Rangers fan that your franchise can no longer try to buy a cup?
- prock

I hate to break this to you, but hockey doesn't belong in Nashville either. I love ith when small markets dolts use the old "buy" the cup, "buy" the World Series. etc. when referring to New York. Put it on a loop.

Just because it’s not their major source of profit, that doesn’t mean they are okay with losing money on it. It’s still a bad investment.

And the tax writeoff thing, no… it doesn’t work like that. When you’re writing off losses, it’s not a good thing, it just means you’re losing less than the full amount.
- prock

I'm fully aware of that. However, you can plan activities around other investments knowing if another investment is going to have a loss. For example, say I have an NHL team that I know is projected to lose $8 million this year, and no idea what it's going to do next year. I also have another investment that I plan on making a major transaction $10 million gain near the end of the same year. I have a decision to make. Do I make the deal before year-end, or wait until after the new year begins? In this case, I'd make sure to close the deal before year-end, knowing that I have that $8 million loss to shield against (which I may not have been able to use otherwise unless I had income from some other passive investment).

Obviously, you would want every investment to be as profitable as it possibly could, but that's a perfect world scenario, and rarely happens that way. Most investors do take in some activities that operate at a loss intentionally. That's why many companies have shell company subsidiaries. Because the NHL isn't quite the cash cow as other sports leagues are, the characteristics of each owner's investment are much broader than the other leagues.

no Cup awarded, 2004-05, that is your boy Gary Bettman's legacy.

This has nothing to do with the Rangers.
- jimbro83

He’s not “my boy”. He comes across to me as a weasel. But I recognize that he’s very good at his job.

So tell me what's wrong with the list of Stanley cup winners since the lockout then?

I hate to break this to you, but hockey doesn't belong in Nashville either. I love ith when small markets dolts use the old "buy" the cup, "buy" the World Series. etc. when referring to New York. Put it on a loop.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

MLB is a joke precisely because of the Yankees.

I think that's the last thing anyone wants to see the NHL turn into.

I'm a Sens fan. The cap screwed the Sens more than any team in the NHL when it came in. We lost Hossa, Havlat and Chara because of the cap.

Yet, I still think it was a good thing and the league desperately needed it.

He’s not “my boy”. He comes across to me as a weasel. But I recognize that he’s very good at his job.

So tell me what's wrong with the list of Stanley cup winners since the lockout then?
- prock

the list of winners HAS NO CUP AWARDED in 2005.

that is your boy's legacy


there is nothing wrong with the list of winners since the lockout, I don't thing the league has any problems at all and should be playing the the eff now.

Bettman is an easy target, but he is nothing more than a frontman to keep the negativity away from the actual owners who are calling the shots
- Eklund

There is no way you can convince me that ALL 30 owners are on the same page when it comes to this lockout. I know they voted 30-0 but honestly ask what the ramifications would be in they didn't vote for the lockout. Look at Vinik and the Lightning organization. He has spent $45M in arena upgrades the past 2 years. Did he really do that to see the arena dark? Did he sign Carle and Salo in the off-season with the goal to lock them out? And thats just the Bolts situation. The Wild didn't sign Suter and Parise with the hopes of a lockout. And there are many other franchises around the league with stories similar to this.

Bettman may represent the 30 owners of the NHL, but that doesn't mean that all 30 owners have the same "representation." Bettman is a puppet who doesn't have the charisma or respect to accurately represent all 30 owners much less act as commissioner to all 30 teams. That is why you have each owner of their respective teams operating for their own good with little to no thought of the effects each decision has for the good of the league itself. Sorry Ek, but Bettman may be an easy target but IMO thats b/c he put himself there. And there is ZERO defense for 3 lockouts b/c there is zero defense for using lockouts as a negotiating strategy.

I hate to break this to you, but hockey doesn't belong in Nashville either. I love ith when small markets dolts use the old "buy" the cup, "buy" the World Series. etc. when referring to New York. Put it on a loop.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

You don’t feel that’s what they were trying to do? $90M payrolls for the Rangers. $200M payrolls for the Yankees. That’s exactly what they’re doing. Contracts like Bobby Holik, 5 years, $45M? Sather and the Rangers are a big reason behind the need for a salary cap.

MLB is a joke precisely because of the Yankees.

I think that's the last thing anyone wants to see the NHL turn into.

I'm a Sens fan. The cap screwed the Sens more than any team in the NHL when it came in. We lost Hossa, Havlat and Chara because of the cap.

Yet, I still think it was a good thing and the league desperately needed it.
- Charliebox

Exactly.

MLB is a joke precisely because of the Yankees.

I think that's the last thing anyone wants to see the NHL turn into.

I'm a Sens fan. The cap screwed the Sens more than any team in the NHL when it came in. We lost Hossa, Havlat and Chara because of the cap.

Yet, I still think it was a good thing and the league desperately needed it.
- Charliebox

Yes, and they got it, now they did everything in their power to circumvent it. Now, they want more of it. Sorry this is nothing more than a greedy power play by the owners and their piss boy Gary Bettman.

You don’t feel that’s what they were trying to do? $90M payrolls for the Rangers. $200M payrolls for the Yankees. That’s exactly what they’re doing. Contracts like Bobby Holik, 5 years, $45M? Sather and the Rangers are a big reason behind the need for a salary cap.
- prock

a small market team just spend 200 million this summer to sign two UFAs

blame that one on the Rangers

Yes, and they got it, now they did everything in their power to circumvent it. Now, they want more of it. Sorry this is nothing more than a greedy power play by the owners and their piss boy Gary Bettman.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

Stop saying 'they'. It was a handful of owners, like yours, who did their best to circumvent it.

2/3 of the league didn't hand out ridiculous deals. It was 1/3. Generally, the same 1/3 that the NHL needed a cap to protect the other 2/3s of the league from.

Stop saying 'they'. It was a handful of owners, like yours, who did their best to circumvent it.

2/3 of the league didn't hand out ridiculous deals. It was 1/3. Generally, the same 1/3 that the NHL needed a cap to protect the other 2/3s of the league from.
- Charliebox

in reality the Rangers never did it until the Brad Richards contract, but the Rangers have never cried poverty.

There are teams out there crying poverty who have circumvented the cap.

Sorry pal, but you are ALWAYS optimistic; that's why I just can't take you seriously.

And now, this message from the NHL's REAL sponsors, us fans...

FU Gary Bettman
FU Donald Fehr
FU NHL owners
FU NHLPA
YOU ALL TRULY SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- BiggE

Definitely agree with that.
And yes, it's hard to put any signifficant stock in what Eklund says about the lockout. Remember, this is the same person who tried to convince us that we would be playing in October and the lockout would be very short. Forever optimist Eklund. I'll believe it when I see it.

All I know is that I'm annoyed!

Oh god. For the 100th time on these forums: It's not feasable to continue on this way.

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, under the last CBA (mainly the floor and not the cap), 1/3 of the league's teams are not viable.

You can female dog and moan all you want about how the players are getting screwed. The bottom line is that if they contined on this path ad infinitum, 1/3 of the league's players wouldn't have a job in the NHL!

What do you not understand about that?

Sure, the owners will come out looking like the bad guys again (with Bettman taking the brunt of it), but these are the people who are provding jobs for the players. If they don't have a business (a team), that's 20+ less jobs for the union.

It's really not that difficult.
- Charliebox

While I certainly agree with you, it seems to me, know amount of tweaking toward a greater share for the owners will REALLY fix these teams overall.

Perhaps there really does need to be greater revenue sharing - thought I'm generally against more of that.

It's crazy, we're in a time where the league revenue grows by over a billion in less then a decade yet 5-7 teams sweat in desperation.

a small market team just spend 200 million this summer to sign two UFAs

blame that one on the Rangers
- jimbro83

Roszival, Redden, Gomez, Richards, Holik, Drury, etc, etc, etc.

in reality the Rangers never did it until the Brad Richards contract, but the Rangers have never cried poverty.

There are teams out there crying poverty who have circumvented the cap.
- jimbro83

Yeah, a few.

Not enough to paint them with one brush and say 'they'.

The majority of the league's GMs/owners don't have the cash/aren't stupid enough to make deals like that.

To be honest, I hope they don't put a max on contract length, so we can laugh at all the morons who continue to hand out deals like that.

Stop saying 'they'. It was a handful of owners, like yours, who did their best to circumvent it.

2/3 of the league didn't hand out ridiculous deals. It was 1/3. Generally, the same 1/3 that the NHL needed a cap to protect the other 2/3s of the league from.
- Charliebox

Kind of sucks when you have to do that, in order to have any chance at all, doesn’t it?

Roszival, Redden, Gomez, Richards, Holik, Drury, etc, etc, etc.
- prock

Outside Richards, they weren't cap circumventing.

Just stupid.

I still can't believe Montreal let the Rangers get away with the Gomez deal.

Roszival, Redden, Gomez, Richards, Holik, Drury, etc, etc, etc.
- prock

the Rangers have never cried poverty.

The Minnesota owner has.

Did you think that the Minnesota owner avoids eye contact with everyone out of embarrassment in the owner's meetings?