So you think a lost Season is going to help Columbus grow their fan base, and fix all the problems that franchises like that have? There's a reason why teams are struggling. Why they aren't making money. Honestly, what is the goal of the NHL? To stagnate and not lose money? Or to grow, both for individual franchises and the League as a whole? What's likely to have more of an impact on the future of the League. The impact of a lost Season could have a lasting impact and set some franchises back years in their development. But yea, they saved some money this year! I'm amazed at some of the narrow mindedness of some.
- MJL

First off, let's put to rest the speculation that this guy is Ek. Not nearly enough spelling errors and typos.

Secondly, if the goal of the NHL is to grow, and "not losing money" takes a backseat to that, then what the hell is holding this up? Wouldn't the owners jump on some concessions that the NHLPA has made? No, because $$$ is THE ENTIRE ISSUE here.

The only clear truth here is that neither side gives a (frank) about us, the fans. Therefore, we should no longer care about them. I'm spending my money and time with my family now, and I'm happy to do so. If I want to watch hockey, I'll watch amateur or AHL.

This is a little confusing! But yea, the fact that it's lasted this long. The process is certainly broken. I still have hope for a Season though.
- MJL

Its the players fault. Anyone with half a brain can see this.

http://www.examiner.com/a...en-obama-visits-on-sunday

Anyone else think it's high time somebody wiped these skidmarks from the butthole of the earth?

Bettman is nothing more than a hardline voice of the owners. I think people confuse their dislike of Bettman's demeanour vs him. I don't blame the owners one bit.... it's their own money funding the whole damn operation.
- BooBoo997

I tend to agree with this take. Bettman has a right and a responsibility as the owners voice to condescend to the PA and Fehr. I mean these guys do act like a bunch of spoiled rotten ingrates.

Ok... Good...... lets start................ Vancouver could play in Pacific Colossium or Great Western Forum.

next....
- Beatle_john

Can't use the Forum, that's owned by MSG. You know, that company that owns the New York Rangers.

So, you've got the old Pacific Coliseum. That's one (1) arena, in one (1) city. I'll even give you Allstate Arena for Chicago (though it's not actually in Chicago, it's on the approach path to a runway at O'Hare). Got an arena lined up for Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary, New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles (again, The Forum is out), and Boston (along with any other city you want to drop a team in)?

http://www.examiner.com/a...en-obama-visits-on-sunday

Anyone else think it's high time somebody wiped these skidmarks from the butthole of the earth?
- sanfordnson

On one hand, these people are the biggest jerks around. They have no respect for anybody, and they insist on constantly bothering the public with their disgusting brand of religion and hatred (which often go hand in hand anyhow).

On the other hand, Huckabee, Pat Robertson, and many others on the religious right are preaching the same garbage: As long as we're "pro-gay" and as long as we "take god out of schools" (or follow the Establishment Clause), we're inviting the wrath of god, or discouraging his divine intervention. Whatever. Westboro Baptist are the bad guys, and therefore everyone who agrees with their ideology is just as wretched.

I tend to agree with this take. Bettman has a right and a responsibility as the owners voice to condescend to the PA and Fehr. I mean these guys do act like a bunch of spoiled rotten ingrates.
- MnGump

And Fehr has the right and responsibility to stand up for the players rights. The Owners act like a bunch of spoiled billionaires who fail to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings in running their franchises.

Really, no Philly or Buffalo? Both have been stable and great hockey cities since they came into the league.

Yah as a matter of fact you are right... Neither Philly nor Buffalo should be on there which you can clearly see by the attendance for last season..

Ill make it easy for you but here are the top 5 plus Buffalo:

1. Chicago- Total: 882874, Avg of 21533
2. Montreal - Total: 872193, Avg of 21273
3. Philadelphia - 837754, Avg of 20433 (ahead of Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver)
4. Detroit - 824706 , Avg of 20114
5. Toronto - 799786 , Avg of 19506
11. Buffalo - 760558, Avg of 18550 (ahead of Boston, NY Rangers, Edmonton and Winnipeg)


http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2012


That is ok though as I always laugh when someone suggests starting a new league.
Financially basically impossible, logistically basically impossible, from a marketing standpoint basically impossible but yah...
- opeth_pa

Good post bro. I tend to ignore 'ignorance' .

- Flyfreaky

Have you seen Tee-Dot lately?

On one hand, these people are the biggest jerks around. They have no respect for anybody, and they insist on constantly bothering the public with their disgusting brand of religion and hatred (which often go hand in hand anyhow).

On the other hand, Huckabee, Pat Robertson, and many others on the religious right are preaching the same garbage: As long as we're "pro-gay" and as long as we "take god out of schools" (or follow the Establishment Clause), we're inviting the wrath of god, or discouraging his divine intervention. Whatever. Westboro Baptist are the bad guys, and therefore everyone who agrees with their ideology is just as wretched.
- Humanist4Caps

Robertson, Huckabee and their ilk at least stay away from situations like this. These assclowns seem to just love anything sad that gets them publicity...

...and here I sit giving it to them. Nm.

And Fehr has the right and responsibility to stand up for the players rights. The Owners act like a bunch of spoiled billionaires who fail to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings in running their franchises.
- MJL

You keep saying this. What could the owners do to 'accept responsibility'?

Please explain.

You keep saying this. What could the owners do to 'accept responsibility'?

Please explain.
- bloatedmosquito

Give the players everything they want so that MJL can resume Saturday night hockey fapping when Giroux hits the ice.

Give the players everything they want so that MJL can resume Saturday night hockey fapping when Giroux hits the ice.
- sanfordnson

Why wouldn't he fap to one of the 3 best players in the game last year?

93 points in 77 games last season..
As a side note Malkin is a monster...109 points in 75 games!!!!

Why wouldn't he fap to one of the 3 best players in the game last year? 93 points in 77 games last season..
As a side note Malkin is a monster...109 points in 75 games!!!!
- opeth_pa

Because that would make him gay. being gay is not ok.

So you think a lost Season is going to help Columbus grow their fan base, and fix all the problems that franchises like that have? There's a reason why teams are struggling. Why they aren't making money. Honestly, what is the goal of the NHL? To stagnate and not lose money? Or to grow, both for individual franchises and the League as a whole? What's likely to have more of an impact on the future of the League. The impact of a lost Season could have a lasting impact and set some franchises back years in their development. But yea, they saved some money this year! I'm amazed at some of the narrow mindedness of some.
- MJL

I agree with you that a lost season won't be good for anybody, especially the weak markets like Columbus etc.

Also that more needs to be done than just lowering players % of HRR's.

Many from your camp seem to be suggesting that major revenue sharing is the way to go.

The thing about that is that's just a form of welfare for the poorer teams. Now we all know what happens with many people once getting welfare. They are inclined to get complacent, and lazy. Not really having as much motivation to right thier own ship, as it is much easier to just accept the free money.

Giving these teams a way out, on the backs of the strong teams that have spent a long time building thier brand, and thier fanbase. Doesn't really give them the motivation to work hard at building thier own team up, just to make some gains in thier own revenue, and lose thier welfare as a result.

The real solution is for those teams to become competitive, and make a playoff run here and there. Fanbases (and thus revenue) are built when thier team shows success. Most of the poorer teams like Columbus have been mostly mired in suckitude for a long time, or in some cased thier entire existance.

This is why it is sooo important for the league to get balance, or parity within all the teams. It is why they need to stand so firm in closing the loopholes from the previous CBA allowing richer owners, like Philli etc. to cheat and gain a competitive edge.

True parity is what makes the playoff races, and especially the playoffs itself more exiting. I'm sure anyone who has been watching hockey since at least the eighty's would agree. It's not all that exciting when most of the playoff races were decided by January, and you pretty much knew who would win most of the playoff matches.

The owners insistance on tightening up the contracting rules, and getting a handle on the cap, is thier best efforts to maintain and even grow the parity to the point where these weaker teams can increase thier HRR contributions as a result of more success on the ice bringing more money in from fans.

That is what the owners are trying to accomplish, and the fact that i enjoy a more exciting and competitive league is why i support them!

We need 6 teams for year 1. is that not how it is done? Now I think we could go 12 to 14.

Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Toronto
Montreal

Those should be shoo-ins, right?

Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Windsor and Quebec City to follow.

New York
Detroit
Boston
Chicago

Again.... pretty certain a market is there.

LA, Minni, Philly , Phoen.... opps.... nope, not there.... to follow

Seattle, Portland could finally be added.

So 9 Markets that could start and 10 more open for expansion teh following year but the league will be maximized at 16 until stable.

Maybe we kick Boston out just for their current owner....


Just imagine...

1. No on ice or board advertising
2. No composite sticks
3. No Helmets (Won;t need em, no one has body armour and single piece wooden sticks keep the shot at a realistic pace)
4. No body armour
5. No Trapizoid
6. No 3 point games
7. No Instigator
8. Realistic suspensions

Did I miss anything?

When you think about it.... holy crap is the current league a crappy mess. It's a blood sport. No skill players necessary.
- Beatle_john

This is just absurd! The people that think a rival league could just start up are delusional. As Irish already pointed out most of the arenas are owned or controlled by NHL clubs. Who exactly are you going to get to own these new teams? Who is going to play in this league? How much do you think they would get paid? You think your going to be able to pay the top guys 8-10 million per year? doubt it. Who is going to sponsor it and where are you going to get a TV deal and for how much?

Your points above:
1. If no board advertising, where will that revenue come from?
2. Just absurd
3. You really think it will be that easy to insure players playing contact hockey with no helmets with the concussion problems today? No Crosby, No Malkin, No Giroux and countles more as they have previous concussion history and would never be allowed to step on the ice without helmets for a game.
4. This is over blown in my opinion.
5. Who cares
6. Who cares
7. Fine. So you are going to have a league that allows fighting and no instigator with no helmets...ya right.
8. Why would you need any suspensions at all in your fantasy world league where there are no problems or issues?

Fact is a rival league is virtually impossible. You would need 12 owners WILLING and ABLE to lose billions for years until they had any possibility to make money. The KHL is the closest thing and it is owned by government, corrupt business men and russian mafia. The conditions are horrible, the players may or may not get paid. The travel, the player treatment, medical, etc is no where close.

Never happening.

You keep saying this. What could the owners do to 'accept responsibility'?

Please explain.
- bloatedmosquito

First of all, the top money making teams have to do far more to help the struggling teams. The wealth of the League has to be more evenly distributed. The revenue sharing they are willing to do is not enough.
Teams such as Columbus, who have failed to develop their franchise and their team into a competitive team for the better part of a decade, have to make changes to their business model. Hopefully hiring John Davidson will get that pointed in the right direction.
And if some of these Owners have to dip into their personal wealth or the equity of the team, to stabilize the financial issues, then so be it.
The League needs to look into issues such as re-location.

First of all, the top money making teams have to do far more to help the struggling teams. The wealth of the League has to be more evenly distributed. The revenue sharing they are willing to do is not enough.
Teams such as Columbus, who have failed to develop their franchise and their team into a competitive team for the better part of a decade, have to make changes to their business model. Hopefully hiring John Davidson will get that pointed in the right direction.
And if some of these Owners have to dip into their personal wealth or the equity of the team, to stabilize the financial issues, then so be it.
The League needs to look into issues such as re-location.
- MJL

Im guessing you're not a fan of trickle down economics.

Commie.

First of all, the top money making teams have to do far more to help the struggling teams. The wealth of the League has to be more evenly distributed. The revenue sharing they are willing to do is not enough.
Teams such as Columbus, who have failed to develop their franchise and their team into a competitive team for the better part of a decade, have to make changes to their business model. Hopefully hiring John Davidson will get that pointed in the right direction.
And if some of these Owners have to dip into their personal wealth or the equity of the team, to stabilize the financial issues, then so be it.
The League needs to look into issues such as re-location.
- MJL

People complaining that teams need to be re-located should do more digging. I for one am glad that the league does not just up and move franchises all the time. Everyone forgets that if Bettman had not fought to keep Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa ten years ago they would have all been gone. People say Dallas and Columbus need to move? Bullpoop! they both are great hockey cities. Both have had some issues one with ownership and one with theon ice product, but moving either would be a mistake. As for Phoenix, there is a reason for keeping them there too. If they get an owner willing to keep them there then great. If not they will be moved. Florida is on the upswing. People seem to think its all Bettmans fault. The board of governors controls the league. Not Bettman. They vote on potential owners. They vote on potential new locations. The Bettman blaming is ridiculous.

I agree with you that a lost season won't be good for anybody, especially the weak markets like Columbus etc.

Also that more needs to be done than just lowering players % of HRR's.

Many from your camp seem to be suggesting that major revenue sharing is the way to go.

The thing about that is that's just a form of welfare for the poorer teams. Now we all know what happens with many people once getting welfare. They are inclined to get complacent, and lazy. Not really having as much motivation to right thier own ship, as it is much easier to just accept the free money.

Giving these teams a way out, on the backs of the strong teams that have spent a long time building thier brand, and thier fanbase. Doesn't really give them the motivation to work hard at building thier own team up, just to make some gains in thier own revenue, and lose thier welfare as a result.

The real solution is for those teams to become competitive, and make a playoff run here and there. Fanbases (and thus revenue) are built when thier team shows success. Most of the poorer teams like Columbus have been mostly mired in suckitude for a long time, or in some cased thier entire existance.

This is why it is sooo important for the league to get balance, or parity within all the teams. It is why they need to stand so firm in closing the loopholes from the previous CBA allowing richer owners, like Philli etc. to cheat and gain a competitive edge.

True parity is what makes the playoff races, and especially the playoffs itself more exiting. I'm sure anyone who has been watching hockey since at least the eighty's would agree. It's not all that exciting when most of the playoff races were decided by January, and you pretty much knew who would win most of the playoff matches.

The owners insistance on tightening up the contracting rules, and getting a handle on the cap, is thier best efforts to maintain and even grow the parity to the point where these weaker teams can increase thier HRR contributions as a result of more success on the ice bringing more money in from fans.

That is what the owners are trying to accomplish, and the fact that i enjoy a more exciting and competitive league is why i support them!
- steveb12344

You know what! I agree with the large majority of this. You and I are not that far apart as far as the ideology goes. Where we differ is the approach to fixing it.

Tell me what would be wrong with vastly increased revenue sharing from the top teams to the poor teams, for a defined period of time. To help those teams ease their financial burden for a period of time. So they can stabilize, and address the issues within those struggling franchises. They can look at their Corporate structure and define and address their shortcomings in drafting, and player development. And in marketing areas.
And if those teams aren't motivated to work hard at building their own team up, just to make some gains in their own revenue, and lose their welfare as a result.
Then there are bigger problems there then anything being negotiated in this CBA can solve.

This CBA negotiation has zero to do with parity. Let's not pretend that it does.

Let's not ignore history. Instituting a 24% rollback and a salary Cap didn't fix anything. What makes you think taking from the players again will? The players are willing to do their share and take a lesser percentage going forward. But why should they also have to accept the contract restrictions also? Because the Owners repeatedly screw up? The players should not have to give up everything. The only real way this get's fixed is from within the franchises themselves. Not from taking from the players. That's been proven.

I'm in agreement and have been since day one of the players taking a lesser percentage. That will help. But that is not the real solution. That is not the real part of their business model that needs to be fixed. It's putting a band aid on it. And not healing the real wound.

And that is why I support the players.

People complaining that teams need to be re-located should do more digging. I for one am glad that the league does not just up and move franchises all the time. Everyone forgets that if Bettman had not fought to keep Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa ten years ago they would have all been gone. People say Dallas and Columbus need to move? Bullpoop! they both are great hockey cities. Both have had some issues one with ownership and one with theon ice product, but moving either would be a mistake. As for Phoenix, there is a reason for keeping them there too. If they get an owner willing to keep them there then great. If not they will be moved. Florida is on the upswing. People seem to think its all Bettmans fault. The board of governors controls the league. Not Bettman. They vote on potential owners. They vote on potential new locations. The Bettman blaming is ridiculous.
- Iggysbff

Which is why I said the League needs to look into it. To see if it's the right move for some franchises or not.
I don't like some of the things that both Bettman and Fehr have done. But I don't blame either of them solely. Both are doing the job they were hired to do. If I blame anyone, it's the Owners.

So you think a lost Season is going to help Columbus grow their fan base, and fix all the problems that franchises like that have? There's a reason why teams are struggling. Why they aren't making money. Honestly, what is the goal of the NHL? To stagnate and not lose money? Or to grow, both for individual franchises and the League as a whole? What's likely to have more of an impact on the future of the League. The impact of a lost Season could have a lasting impact and set some franchises back years in their development. But yea, they saved some money this year! I'm amazed at some of the narrow mindedness of some.
- MJL

Again you change the context of the conversation. But that's ok, I realize you don't know how to have an actual conversation if you can't think that you're right about something. My comments were based on the premise of lost revenue and profit compared to the NFL and NBA. It's literally impossible to miss what you haven't actually lost in terms of negative profit.

Pretty much everything you stated is strictly your theory. Although I can agree most of what you've stated is a possibility, the truth of the matter is you simply do not know how a lost season will truly affect the NHL as a whole, and maybe there's something you're not considering in this whole mess. Maybe this is exactly what the NHL needs. Maybe the loss of a season will actually be better in the long run for the leagues financial well being and future growth. A sort of reset. Mabye this will force the league to contract or relocate teams that are not solvent. Nobody can really say with 100% certainty how negatively or positively the impact of a lost season will have. The majority of the fans will be right back where they were before this lockout happened. The ones lost will most likely be casual fans that more than likely would not spend money on games or merchandise. Bottom line is obviously it's going to hurt the league, but teams on the edge or close to the bottom weren't going to grow much with or without a season.

Again you change the context of the conversation. But that's ok, I realize you don't know how to have an actual conversation if you can't think that you're right about something. My comments were based on the premise of lost revenue and profit compared to the NFL and NBA. It's literally impossible to miss what you haven't actually lost in terms of negative profit.


- MnGump

You know, I read the entire conversation on the gun issue on the other thread. Repeatedly, you would not allow others their opinion on the matter, insisting that you were correct. It's called being a hypocrite

You made this statement that I replied to

"How are the majority of those owners going to be so bad off if they actually lose less by forgoing the season?'

So how was my reply discussing how a lost Season would affect a team like Columbus changing the context of the conversation? It isn't. And you're just simply full of it. But you have a problem obviously dealing with an opinion other then your own.

Pretty much everything you stated is strictly your theory. Although I can agree most of what you've stated is a possibility, the truth of the matter is you simply do not know how a lost season will truly affect the NHL as a whole, and maybe there's something you're not considering in this whole mess. Maybe this is exactly what the NHL needs. Maybe the loss of a season will actually be better in the long run for the leagues financial well being and future growth. A sort of reset. Mabye this will force the league to contract or relocate teams that are not solvent. Nobody can really say with 100% certainty how negatively or positively the impact of a lost season will have. The majority of the fans will be right back where they were before this lockout happened. The ones lost will most likely be casual fans that more than likely would not spend money on games or merchandise. Bottom line is obviously it's going to hurt the league, but teams on the edge or close to the bottom weren't going to grow much with or without a season.
- MnGump

Yea, it is my theory. I think it's a pretty safe theory that losing a Season could have pretty drastic consequences for the League. And I've read many articles written by experts on the subject of how this is affecting the League, it's brand, and it's sponsors.

Is this a fact that the teams on the edge or close to the bottom weren't going to grow much with or without a Season, or is it a theory of yours? I don't necessarily disagree with that. But I think it is pretty safe to say that they certainly won't grow without a Season. And that is really the entire point.

So that begs a question. How does the CBA changes the League wants to make, ensure growth with those teams? Or is that changing the context of the conversation again?

Agreed that Bettman and the owners deserve a share of the blame. But I also can't help but wonder whether the shock and awe tactic of the first proposal was simply a preemptive strike solely because of Fehr's hardline reputation.

Ironically, my opinion of Bettman has (very) slightly increased over the last several weeks. Let's face it, the general dislike fans hae for Bettman is in large part due to his perceived apathy towards the game in general. Administrators are always reviled anyway, but even more so when they are believed to have no real interest in the thing they are adminstering.

So when Bettman showed a little emotion my respect increased a bit.
- TheGreat28

yeah, I can't decide which was worse, Bettman's opening proposal or the players hiring Fehr. the moment Fehr was hired was the moment half the season was lost. I'm not so sure anymore if a more cooperative approach by Bettman would have made any bit of difference. We know fosho that Bettman wanted a deal in the first week of December and, if not for Fehr, the players would have taken it.

yeah, I can't decide which was worse, Bettman's opening proposal or the players hiring Fehr. the moment Fehr was hired was the moment half the season was lost. I'm not so sure anymore if a more cooperative approach by Bettman would have made any bit of difference. We know fosho that Bettman wanted a deal in the first week of December and, if not for Fehr, the players would have taken it.
- seanjohn667

Based on the the involvement of Proskauer Rose as the law firm the League has chosen for this. That is when the League's chief strategy was always going to lead to a lockout. And that was further ensured by the player hiring Fehr. Will see if it leads to a complete lost Season. There is no evidence to support that without Fehr the players would have taken that offer.