all we got to go by is factual evidence.. any other theories are just that.. theories
- Dozzer

Or conspiracies

no... its 2012

look at the damn link.. if it was 2011 it would of said atlanta

i am providing an actual source.. and not a little known one either..and you are still adamant

also.. at the bottom of the web page link you will see the copyright is 2012

EDIT: here is the page on the jets specifically

http://www.forbes.com/teams/winnipeg-jets/
- Dozzer

these ones are getting abit exasperating.

"i dont believe what they're saying".

"ok, fair. well here's some numbers from a reputable source".

"i dont believe those numbers.
i have an idea in my head how it should be and ima go with that".

argument over

Not really. Its still one voice among 30.
- rmdevil313

No...it's 8 vs 30.

...and a diproportionate amount of revenue

Speaking of Forbes and player agents etc...

It's another thing that blows my mind. We've argued here a lot as to the validity of these numbers and most of us would agree that they should be a pretty damned good measuring stick.

Anyways I've heard so many pro player people, including agents, including Alan Walsh shooting down those number saying they are a bunch of made up inaccurate propaganda BS... it's funny that recently Walsh cited a Forbes article to say "Look at how much these franchises have risen in value, owners are rich!"

I'd provide a link but the guy has me blocked now. You could probably find the Tweet if you searched "alan walsh nhl franchise"
- Senators2112

walsh is a hack.. big time.. he flat out refuses any evidence contrary to his opinion but then will turn around and use that very same evidence when it suits him

he's terrible. i never even paid too much attention to him til recently.. he fabricates his positions by using information that only supports his personal view.. he is not unbiased.. and he reminds me of the lame kid in high school who used to hang out with the jocks waiting to get invited to the party

Oh I got back to him on that but... at that point I think Walsh had called him, told him I'm just some crazy person trying to make up crazy stories and start fights with players and not to get into it with me in public.
- Senators2112

dont listen to these idiot fans bob, they dont know sh*t. he's just trying to stir the pot.
we know there's a cap, how could salaries possibly have gone up??
keep fighting the good fight bob

all we got to go by is factual evidence.. any other theories are just that.. theories
- Dozzer

Agreed. I read one piece on how the Panthers owners actually did break even, but this was only because they get a portion of other events at the stadium. So sure, the owner made money, but he still loses it on his hockey operations.

these ones are getting abit exasperating.

"i dont believe what they're saying".

"ok, fair. well here's some numbers from a reputable source".

"i dont believe those numbers.
i have an idea in my head how it should be and ima go with that".

argument over
- hugefemale dog77

hey, if someone disputed my comment and provided another reputable source that backed their opinion i would be very interested.

i am not one who likes to buy into opinion.. i wont always dispute it.. but opinion is what it is.... opinion

No...it's 8 vs 30.

...and a diproportionate amount of revenue
- R-SAL

8 v 30? What?

And more revenue doesn't mean a louder voice.

In response to all the nay sayers regarding the boycott theory:

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

That's an Einstein quote for those not in the know.

He was of average intelligence I believe (sarcasm)
- R-SAL

Here's my problem -- I'm really enjoying the lockout.

Agreed. I read one piece on how the Panthers owners actually did break even, but this was only because they get a portion of other events at the stadium. So sure, the owner made money, but he still loses it on his hockey operations.
- rmdevil313

yes, precisely, and the CBA is based on what the franchises make.. not what owners make outside of the NHL. players do not deserve any portion of revenue generated by the owners assets that have nothing to do with the NHL

fact is.. according to Forbes.. 60% (18) teams were in the red last year.. thats absurd and unsustainable. player salaries have risen faster than a healthy curve would allow.

the players had a bit of a golden age in the last couple years.. now they have to realize that the recent success is not the norm.. and things will come back to earth.

they just dont like it and they are whining

oh boo hoo.. you only make 3.4 million this year instead of 3.655 million

rough life

yes, precisely, and the CBA is based on what the franchises make.. not what owners make outside of the NHL. players do not deserve any portion of revenue generated by the owners assets that have nothing to do with the NHL

fact is.. according to Forbes.. 60% (18) teams were in the red last year.. thats absurd and unsustainable. player salaries have risen faster than a healthy curve would allow.

the players had a bit of a golden age in the last couple years.. now they have to realize that the recent success is not the norm.. and things will come back to earth.

they just dont like it and they are whining

oh boo hoo.. you only make 3.4 million this year instead of 3.655 million

rough life
- Dozzer

8 v 30? What?

And more revenue doesn't mean a louder voice.
- rmdevil313

My apologies....8 of 30

- rmdevil313

Understood; however, assuming you are looking to discredit the boycot theory, the degradation of their primary business is a pressure tactic to force them to make a deal.

I understand that the players don't receive a lick from the owners primary business; but if the owner feels that making 100 million with an NHL franchise will cost him 200 million in his primary business because of the fans actions then he may be likely to cut a deal quicker and we can get back to the one thing we all have in common; that is, an affinity for watching NHL calbre hockey.

The boycot worked before when the NHL and WHL merged.

It could work again,

Nonetheless, a Senators fan is threatening to whipe his arse with a Joe Louis so I will drop it.

yes, precisely, and the CBA is based on what the franchises make.. not what owners make outside of the NHL. players do not deserve any portion of revenue generated by the owners assets that have nothing to do with the NHL

fact is.. according to Forbes.. 60% (18) teams were in the red last year.. thats absurd and unsustainable. player salaries have risen faster than a healthy curve would allow.

the players had a bit of a golden age in the last couple years.. now they have to realize that the recent success is not the norm.. and things will come back to earth.

they just dont like it and they are whining

oh boo hoo.. you only make 3.4 million this year instead of 3.655 million

rough life
- Dozzer

Understood; however, assuming you are looking to discredit the boycot theory, the degradation of their primary business is a pressure tactic to force them to make a deal.

I understand that the players don't receive a lick from the owners primary business; but if the owner feels that making 100 million with an NHL franchise will cost him 200 million in his primary business because of the fans actions then he may be likely to cut a deal quicker and we can get back to the one thing we all have in common; that is, an affinity for watching NHL calbre hockey.

The boycot worked before when the NHL and WHL merged.

It could work again,

Nonetheless, a Senators fan is threatening to whipe his arse with a Joe Louis so I will drop it.

Understood; however, assuming you are looking to discredit the boycot theory, the degradation of their primary business is a pressure tactic to force them to make a deal.

I understand that the players don't receive a lick from the owners primary business; but if the owner feels that making 100 million with an NHL franchise will cost him 200 million in his primary business because of the fans actions then he may be likely to cut a deal quicker and we can get back to the one thing we all have in common; that is, an affinity for watching NHL calbre hockey.

The boycot worked before when the NHL and WHL merged.

It could work again,

Nonetheless, a Senators fan is threatening to whipe his arse with a Joe Louis so I will drop it.
- R-SAL

You think hockey fans alone have the ability to boycott at least 8 businesses for 200 million dollars each to stop the lockout?

You think hockey fans alone have the ability to boycott at least 8 businesses for 200 million dollars each to stop the lockout?
- rmdevil313

How many people in Canada use Bell services?

Yes, I do.

You have to remember that if shareholders have an optic that a business will generate less revenue then they will sell shares....which also hurts.

How many people in Canada use Bell services?

Yes, I do.

You have to remember that if shareholders have an optic that a business will generate less revenue then they will sell shares....which also hurts.
- R-SAL

1 down 7 to go, if Bell is even plausible.

no... its 2012

look at the damn link.. if it was 2011 it would of said atlanta

i am providing an actual source.. and not a little known one either..and you are still adamant

also.. at the bottom of the web page link you will see the copyright is 2012

EDIT: here is the page on the jets specifically

http://www.forbes.com/teams/winnipeg-jets/
- Dozzer

1. Total up the amount of revenues shown. It adds up to $3.090 billion. The NHL has already said league revenues for 2011-12 were $3.303 billion.

2. This was the original story, posted November 30, 2011.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...0/the-business-of-hockey/

Note some of the data points mentioned in that article, and how they oddly correspond exactly with the data points in the link you provided above. Seeing as how 2011-12 clearly hadn't been completed, it should be pretty clear that (A) the data for revenues is based from the 2010-11 season, and (B) that means Winnipeg's alleged revenue is in fact Atlanta's actual revenue. (Unless you really think that by selling out a 15,000 seat arena and with all of the mass interest in merchandise, the Jets only pulled in $71 million in revenue.)

3. There's this note on the bottom of the Jets page (and the page of the other 29 teams):

Revenue and operating income are for 2011 season and net of revenue sharing and stadium debt service.

Not 2012 season, 2011 season - you know, the one the Jets were in Atlanta for. If that's not enough, there's also this note up top:

Team Value calculated November 2011

So ... how exactly would Forbes know the 2011-12 revenues in November, 2011?

4. The date listed on the copyright changes with the current year, to show that it remains in effect. Bookmark some articles now that show (C) 2012, go back in early 2013 and see if the year changes. Hint: they will.

5. Forbes will likely put you yet another "Business of Hockey" article in a few weeks. Watch and see how the numbers change - and how the revenues add up to nearly $3.3 billion.

We should probably get together for beers - it would save us a lot of money.
- Atomic Wedgie

... and make a really cute couple.