B.S. from Weber

[AndyS]

Here is the quote from Seravalli's article today:

"The team has stepped up and showed that they're going to spend with the best of the teams and now we can focus on the season."

Um, not exactly.

They spent money on you & Rinne. The rest of the team around you is going to consist of scrap parts,rentals, has-beens & scrubs for the next 4 or 5 years or more.

Sorry, you know that is what they wanted him to say. Just total nonsense.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20120726_OFFERS_LEAVE_EMPTY_FEELING.html#ixzz21jXrZF7e

Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

[MDFlyerFan]

Let's not forget they let Hamhuis walk two years ago. They dealt his rights to us but he wanted to play in Vancouver.

If they lost Weber that would have been 3 all-star D-men gone in 2 years.

PS: I was never a Hamhuis fan.

[ruxpin]

What else is Weber supposed to say? "Man, this sucks monkey balls? This franchise is big heaping steaming bowl of cow crap and now I'm stuck here?"

[Bakanekimiwa]

What else is Weber supposed to say? "Man, this sucks monkey balls? This franchise is big heaping steaming bowl of cow crap and now I'm stuck here?"

that would have been refreshing to hear though.

[TimKerrFan12]

@AndyS

I always wanted to use this phrase in a sentence, but never had the opportunity.

It must be BITTER-SWEET for Weber. Got is money, but stuck in Nashville. I think the money has him feeling a bit sweet rather than bitter.

[JackStraw]

What else is Weber supposed to say? "Man, this sucks monkey balls? This franchise is big heaping steaming bowl of cow crap and now I'm stuck here?"

He's supposed to say, "all things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia".

[radoran]

Weber always wanted to be a Leaf.

Seriously - can we stop being concerned with the fact the milk is all over the floor and start doing something about cleaning it up and moving on?

[Lindbergh31]

Here is the quote from Seravalli's article today:

Um, not exactly.

They spent money on you & Rinne. The rest of the team around you is going to consist of scrap parts,rentals, has-beens & scrubs for the next 4 or 5 years or more.

Sorry, you know that is what they wanted him to say. Just total nonsense.

http://www.philly.co...l#ixzz21jXrZF7e

Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

Weber has no choice but to say all the right things when asked about Nashville matching the offer sheet. Maybe 4 years from now when things go for a **** in Nashville, he'll be pulling a Rick Nash and asking to be traded but unfortunately for him he won't be able to dictate where he wants to go. He got his money, now he has to shut up and play for the Preds.

[FLYERS67]

And the worst thing about this (except for not getting Weber) is that the large market teams (Flyers, Red Wings,Rags etc) will be helping to pay for this

guy through revenue sharing, because Nashville never makes money.. I think that SUCKS!!

[radoran]

And the worst thing about this (except for not getting Weber) is that the large market teams (Flyers, Red Wings,Rags etc) will be helping to pay for this

guy through revenue sharing, because Nashville never makes money.. I think that SUCKS!!

Revenue sharing across the league has made the NFL into the most valuable and arguably most popular single sports league in the world.

The owners of the big market teams were the league that decided to expand the game into the new, smaller, unconventional markets.

If they weren't willing to pay the price to grow the game - nothing is free - then they should have made a different decision.

I would have been fine with that.

[Spinorama]

Revenue sharing across the league has made the NFL into the most valuable and arguably most popular single sports league in the world.

I'm sorry man, but I have to disagree. I LOVE HOCKEY and wish it were more popular...but FOOTBALL is what makes the NFL the most popular sports leagues. Football is religion to a vast majority of people. The NFL just figured out how to run the business end of it to perfection, but that is NOT what makes it the most popular sport. To learn the sport as a kid, all you need is a ball, not even a football really, any ball will do of relative size (I used to play football as a kid with a regular ball, not a football because no one had a football, but that didn't stop us). Hockey is VERY different from that. Also, you don't even need the NFL to watch a **** ton of football... ever surf the channels on a Saturday during football season? it's a showcase of college football all over the place. Yeah sure, you could make the argument that those kids are trying to get into the NFL but the bottom line is that all of those games are on TV because people LOVE watching football and will watch just about any team play if they can.

To your point though, the NHL could definitely benefit from taking a page or 2 out of the NFL playbook for sure!

[radoran]

I'm sorry man, but I have to disagree. I LOVE HOCKEY and wish it were more popular...but FOOTBALL is what makes the NFL the most popular sports leagues. Football is religion to a vast majority of people. The NFL just figured out how to run the business end of it to perfection, but that is NOT what makes it the most popular sport. To learn the sport as a kid, all you need is a ball, not even a football really, any ball will do of relative size (I used to play football as a kid with a regular ball, not a football because no one had a football, but that didn't stop us). Hockey is VERY different from that. Also, you don't even need the NFL to watch a **** ton of football... ever surf the channels on a Saturday during football season? it's a showcase of college football all over the place. Yeah sure, you could make the argument that those kids are trying to get into the NFL but the bottom line is that all of those games are on TV because people LOVE watching football and will watch just about any team play if they can.

To your point though, the NHL could definitely benefit from taking a page or 2 out of the NFL playbook for sure!

The level of competition that the league has and the degree of parity it keeps - in large part because there aren't extreme "have" and "have not" teams due to revenue sharing - is what keeps its Vast popularity. People won't watch "any game they can" if the teams continually stink or the franchises can't compete.

Believe me, I know how people can be about the NFL - and irrationally so. I give you the Buffalo Bills selling out every home game while missing the playoffs for ten years.

But even Buffalo had a few games blacked out locally in the past few seasons. And this is a town where the favorite jersey - I kid you not - is the punter.

Which just proves that franchises can still suck donkey balls in a revenue sharing league - or be dominant. The difference is that it's primarily the football decisions that are the deciding factors over purely financial concerns. Trading Herschel Walker for the entire year's draft picks from the Vikings, for example. Killed the Vikings. Gave the Cowboys a dynasty. Had nothing to do with money.

[Spinorama]

@radoran

my point was that football, is the reason people go crazy about football. college football, ever been to a D1 school's campus for a game? hell, even go to small towns across america and see the crowds that turnout for HIGHSCHOOL?!?! football (ever hear of Friday Night Lights?). I get what you are saying,but revenue sharing isn't what are making the freaks fanatical about local highschool football or college football. it's.... football

[jammer2]

One of the big differences from football to hockey is of course the length of a season. A single game in the NFL is HUGE...a one month slate of 4 games equals a quarter season of NHL hockey...or roughly 20 games. Big difference. The playoffs in the NHL are a 2 month fiasco....the in the NFL you can play on 3 Sundays in Jan/Feb and win a championship. NFL games are monumental....NHL games are meh, one of many.

[JackStraw]

@radoran - I think you're oversimplifying the factors that have made the NFL so successful. First off, as spinner points out, football is WAY more popular in the US than hockey. It's not even close. As a result, the NFL gets mega-dollar network TV deals that the NHL can only dream of. It's a lot easier to convince owners that revenue sharing is a good thing when there is lots and lots of revenue to share. The old AFL got a network contract with ABC in its first year of existence, in 1960. I'm pretty sure that whatever revenue sharing was going on then (in the NFL or AFL) was not to the extent that it is now.

Football was so popular even then that the AFL could steal top college talent from the NFL pretty much right away. And in less than a decade the upstart league was arguably putting out a better product, and eventually the NFL was forced to merge. Compare the success of the NFL with that of the WHA and it's two different worlds.

Then consider the NFL schedule- for the most part, every game is played at the same time (within a few hours). People pack sports bars everywhere, not just to watch their favorite team but to see what's happening in other games. With so few games, every game is important. Again, this makes the TV contract a pot of gold for the NFL. You'll never, ever see that in the NHL. It's not TV-friendly, and there are too many games to attract that kind of TV audience (and the advertising dollars that come with it).

Without a big network TV contract the NHL is not likely to ever get the kind of revenue that will make bigger market teams comfortable with the idea of subsidizing small market teams to the extent that happens in the NFL.

[AndyS]

Weber has no choice but to say all the right things when asked about Nashville matching the offer sheet. Maybe 4 years from now when things go for a **** in Nashville, he'll be pulling a Rick Nash and asking to be traded but unfortunately for him he won't be able to dictate where he wants to go. He got his money, now he has to shut up and play for the Preds.

He should be positive in his statements. But let's be honest - his signing is NOT an indication that the Preds will be spending money on players (except on him). If anything, it means the exact opposite.

I give Nashville credit for locking up their franchise's marquee player. He is the face of the team & will likely be the first player in the HOF wearing a Predators jersey. But this statement about them spending money is pure spin. It's borderline dishonest, IMO.

[radoran]

@radoran - I think you're oversimplifying the factors that have made the NFL so successful. First off, as spinner points out, football is WAY more popular in the US than hockey. It's not even close. As a result, the NFL gets mega-dollar network TV deals that the NHL can only dream of. It's a lot easier to convince owners that revenue sharing is a good thing when there is lots and lots of revenue to share. The old AFL got a network contract with ABC in its first year of existence, in 1960. I'm pretty sure that whatever revenue sharing was going on then (in the NFL or AFL) was not to the extent that it is now.

Football was so popular even then that the AFL could steal top college talent from the NFL pretty much right away. And in less than a decade the upstart league was arguably putting out a better product, and eventually the NFL was forced to merge. Compare the success of the NFL with that of the WHA and it's two different worlds.

Then consider the NFL schedule- for the most part, every game is played at the same time (within a few hours). People pack sports bars everywhere, not just to watch their favorite team but to see what's happening in other games. With so few games, every game is important. Again, this makes the TV contract a pot of gold for the NFL. You'll never, ever see that in the NHL. It's not TV-friendly, and there are too many games to attract that kind of TV audience (and the advertising dollars that come with it).

Without a big network TV contract the NHL is not likely to ever get the kind of revenue that will make bigger market teams comfortable with the idea of subsidizing small market teams to the extent that happens in the NFL.

I am not saying that the NHL will be the NFL with revenue sharing.

I'm saying that the revenue sharing structure of the NFL benefits the league as a whole and has helped make it the league it is today. Virtually every NFL owner - with the pssible exception of Jerry Jones - would (perhaps begrudgingly) agree with that.

I was responding to a poster who was lamenting the very concept of revenue sharing in a league with a stated objective - agree or not - of expanding the game into new, unfamiliar markets.

That requires investment. From the league as a whole.

Going down a rabbit hole about specifics of the NFL and the difference between it and the NHL is fine - but it's not the point. The point is that the NFL is the most successful league in the country, if not the world, and HAS the "sucky" revenue sharing agreement.

[radoran]

He should be positive in his statements. But let's be honest - his signing is NOT an indication that the Preds will be spending money on players (except on him). If anything, it means the exact opposite.

I give Nashville credit for locking up their franchise's marquee player. He is the face of the team & will likely be the first player in the HOF wearing a Predators jersey. But this statement about them spending money is pure spin. It's borderline dishonest, IMO.

The Preds have their own board.

[JackStraw]

Going down a rabbit hole about specifics of the NFL and the difference between it and the NHL is fine - but it's not the point. The point is that the NFL is the most successful league in the country, if not the world, and HAS the "sucky" revenue sharing agreement.

Agreed. But the other point is that it was already the most successful (or very close) league in the country before it went all socialist. Revenue sharing didn't make the league popular, it sustained and increased what was already an extremely popular product. The NHL is not in the same position.

[radoran]

Agreed. But the other point is that it was already the most successful (or very close) league in the country before it went all socialist. Revenue sharing didn't make the league popular, it sustained and increased what was already an extremely popular product. The NHL is not in the same position.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2781759

Upon taking over in 1960, Rozelle persuaded NFL team owners -- most notably Carroll Rosenbloom of the Colts, and George Preston Marshall of the Redskins -- to agree to share revenues between teams. His business model was essentially a system that benefited all teams equally, from revenue sharing to the player draft.

Rozelle's vision was only strengthened by his successor, Paul Tagliabue, who instituted the strictest salary cap system of any of the major leagues, and further enhanced the revenue sharing system. Both revenue sharing and the salary cap have contributed to competitive balance, in the face of a growing imbalance between high-revenue and low-revenue teams.

So, the NFL was the most popular league in the World in 1960?

If you're going to have "competitive sport" then you need "competitive franchises".

[JackStraw]

So, the NFL was the most popular league in the World in 1960?

In this country (which is all that matters here), they were obviously second to baseball, well ahead of the NBA and the NHL. But the Packers, in itty-bitty Green Bay were already competitive with all the big market teams before 1960. And again, the key thing is that the sport itself was widely popular in this country. Enough so to support the launch of a competitive league in 1960. Hockey has never been popular enough to launch a competitive league. And the bulk of the revenue sharing in the NFL comes from big network TV contracts, which the NHL does not have. And they will never, ever, have a TV contract anywhere close to what the NFL has.

Nobody is saying that revenue sharing does not help smaller teams. As I'm sure you know, the NHL does have revenue sharing now, although it's pretty convoluted. I'm sure it could be improved. But I do not believe that it is any kind of panacea that could give the NHL even close to the widespread appeal of the NFL.

Compare the money the Eagles bring in to what the Flyers bring in:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/30/nfl-valuations-11_Philadelphia-Eagles_301623.html

http://www.forbes.com/teams/philadelphia-flyers/

Eagles income before taxes, etc, is $28.9 million, the Flyers is $3.2 million. Both are among the wealthiest teams in their respective leagues. Without that big fat TV contract there just isn't that much revenue to share.

I would guess that the league will try to get concessions from the players in the upcoming CBA negotiations to increase revenue sharing (meaning less money for player salaries). I don't think the union will be too accommodating on that topic, and whatever changes they are able to make will probably not solve the problems of small market teams.

[radoran]

In this country (which is all that matters here), they were obviously second to baseball, well ahead of the NBA and the NHL. But the Packers, in itty-bitty Green Bay were already competitive with all the big market teams before 1960. And again, the key thing is that the sport itself was widely popular in this country. Enough so to support the launch of a competitive league in 1960. Hockey has never been popular enough to launch a competitive league. And the bulk of the revenue sharing in the NFL comes from big network TV contracts, which the NHL does not have. And they will never, ever, have a TV contract anywhere close to what the NFL has.

Nobody is saying that revenue sharing does not help smaller teams. As I'm sure you know, the NHL does have revenue sharing now, although it's pretty convoluted. I'm sure it could be improved. But I do not believe that it is any kind of panacea that could give the NHL even close to the widespread appeal of the NFL.

Compare the money the Eagles bring in to what the Flyers bring in:

http://www.forbes.co...les_301623.html

http://www.forbes.co...delphia-flyers/

Eagles income before taxes, etc, is $28.9 million, the Flyers is $3.2 million. Both are among the wealthiest teams in their respective leagues. Without that big fat TV contract there just isn't that much revenue to share.

I would guess that the league will try to get concessions from the players in the upcoming CBA negotiations to increase revenue sharing (meaning less money for player salaries). I don't think the union will be too accommodating on that topic, and whatever changes they are able to make will probably not solve the problems of small market teams.

C'mon, man. The NFL in 1960 still was under threat from a challenge by another league.

The facts are facts. Revenue sharing is one of the essential pillars upon which the NFL's current success is based.

[JackStraw]

C'mon, man. The NFL in 1960 still was under threat from a challenge by another league.

Yes, another football league. That's the point. In 1960 Americans all over this country already were falling in love with football.

The facts are facts. Revenue sharing is one of the essential pillars upon which the NFL's current success is based

I'm not saying that it isn't. It's the goose that keeps laying the golden egg. Unfortunately the NHL only has geese that lay regular eggs.

I'm old enough to remember the AFL. And I can tell you, without hesitation, that in 1968 more people knew who Joe Namath was (and could instantly recognize him) than know who Sidney Crosby is today. And by more, I don't mean just a tad more, or a middling amount more, I mean ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more. It is so not even close that it's not funny.

Revenue sharing for the NHL? Yes. NFL as the model for success in the NHL? I don't think so.

[radoran]

Revenue sharing for the NHL? Yes. NFL as the model for success in the NHL? I don't think so.

NFL as *a* model of success - again, in response to a poster who said the entire idea of revenue sharing "sucks."

The entire idea of revenue sharing does not "suck."

Here endeth the lesson.

[JackStraw]

NFL as *a* model of success - again, in response to a poster who said the entire idea of revenue sharing "sucks."

The entire idea of revenue sharing does not "suck."

Here endeth the lesson.

Never said it did.