Jump to content

Why Should I Frakkin' Care?


radoran
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Millionaires - and billionaires - are determined to stop us from watching professional sport because of their economic interests.

**** them.

This sucks! It's damn near December and I haven't been to a game yet! I'm gonna go to Wilkes-Barre Scranton soon I swear!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you why, Rad. Because I don't. From my point of view, the question is "why DO you care?" I think most likely I"m done watching the NHL

Players don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for other players. Evidenced by the cheap crap on the ice, dirty hits, etc.

Players don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for coaches. See any number of coaches completely ignored and tossed aside by these prima donna players.

Players don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for owners. Not sure they should.

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for the players. They have yet to make rule changes that actually protect the people making money for them. And now the CBA for the second time in less than a decade and the third in two decades.

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for their non-player employees their petulant, self-absorbed, self-mutilating, selfish actions have harmed financially and otherwise.

Owners don't give a crap about the cities they play for. They shouldn't be called "Philadelphia" Flyers or "Edmonton" or whatever. Just change it to the "Comcast Flyers," etc. and be done with the ******** charade.

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for the fans. Evidence: reality

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for the network that was trying to help make the NHL not look like the joke of a league that it is; their advertisers, their vendors, etc.

Screw the whole damn lot of them. If I want to see a bunch of spoiled, overpaid, rich pieces of garbage that care nothing for anyone but themselves on ice, I'll wait for Disney's" Republicans on Ice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Rux! Well done as a good rant... I'm completly at peace with this situation. I'll watch when they come back. I won't spend any money this year or next, but I'll watch or listen to what ever I get for free... The owners will win this. Even if they meet the PA halfway this time they will meet them halfway the next time (2015?) which means they will have 75% what they want. And so on (2020?) See, the owners don't answer to the players. They answer to the investors. They exist to make money and only money and they will. My biggest problem with this whole thing is that people (not talking about you Rux) don't seem to get this extremely simple concept... I'm glad those very well intentioned folks were not in charge of the free market system or it wouldn't have existed in the first place....

I think the owners need to honor those contracts and am not happy with no hockey but this a fight that has to happen. Thats what makes it ok with me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you why, Rad. Because I don't. From my point of view, the question is "why DO you care?" I think most likely I"m done watching the NHL

Players don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for other players. Evidenced by the cheap crap on the ice, dirty hits, etc.

Players don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for coaches. See any number of coaches completely ignored and tossed aside by these prima donna players.

Players don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for owners. Not sure they should.

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for the players. They have yet to make rule changes that actually protect the people making money for them. And now the CBA for the second time in less than a decade and the third in two decades.

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for their non-player employees their petulant, self-absorbed, self-mutilating, selfish actions have harmed financially and otherwise.

Owners don't give a crap about the cities they play for. They shouldn't be called "Philadelphia" Flyers or "Edmonton" or whatever. Just change it to the "Comcast Flyers," etc. and be done with the ******** charade.

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for the fans. Evidence: reality

Owners don't give a crap about or show a lick of respect for the network that was trying to help make the NHL not look like the joke of a league that it is; their advertisers, their vendors, etc.

Screw the whole damn lot of them. If I want to see a bunch of spoiled, overpaid, rich pieces of garbage that care nothing for anyone but themselves on ice, I'll wait for Disney's" Republicans on Ice."

LMAO! That's the good ol' smarmy Rux diatribe I'd expect from you. It's why my money goes to watching junior games (well, that and my only real choice is watching the Leafs as one of the teams for the top dollar in the NHL) But I know when the league finally starts up I'll have to watch. I may not be as interested at first, but I'm an addict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly

The owners will win this.

Yes, they will. Although that may depend upon one's definition of "win." Kind of a Pyrrhic victory if it really does come at the expense of losing fans that came out of the womb with a puck. But ultimately you are correct.

Even if they meet the PA halfway this time they will meet them halfway the next time (2015?) which means they will have 75% what they want. And so on (2020?)

Probably But if it's at that frequency, then we're back to the Pyrrhic victory thing.

See, the owners don't answer to the players. They answer to the investors.

One of the nasty side-effects to the death of the family-owned teams and the corporate takeover of everything. No sense whining about it; it is what it is=it sucks.

They exist to make money and only money and they will.

Well, of course they do. (Psst...those that deserve to already make large piles of it--see below)

My biggest problem with this whole thing is that people (not talking about you Rux) don't seem to get this extremely simple concept.

You're being gracious not including me in that statement. I think given your point you'd have been within reason if you did. Again, ultimately, I"m afraid your points to now are correct. I think the situation is more nuanced than what you're presenting on a step-by-step level, but I also think what you boil it down to will be ultimately accurate.

I'm glad those very well intentioned folks were not in charge of the free market system or it wouldn't have existed in the first place....

Here's the place where I'm going to disagree a little bit. Without degenerating into a existential discussion of free market vs. what phlfly wishes he could go back to, I think it's a stretch to compare the "free market system" to what we have in the NHL. Bear with me, because I'm thinking as I type and if this makes sense it's purely accidental.

1) Owners exist to make money. True.

2) This lockout is largely because those owners that have successfully done so and could continue to do so under the current and previous system are being forced to lose that money twice in 6 (or whatever) years to find a system that those owners who are failing miserably at it can get an artificially subsidized piece of the pie. They've put hockey where it doesn't belong, predictably failed with it, then held the successful owners and players at gun point to use ANTI-free market means to cover over their stupidity.

3) That's not free market. Free market is succeed and make money. Fail and shut up and go home. It is not fail and have some other owner donate his winnings to you while not honoring his own promises, contracts, and responsibilities.

I think the owners need to honor those contracts and am not happy with no hockey but this a fight that has to happen. That's what makes it ok with me...

You had me with all of your premises and predictions. It's the "fight that needs to happen" stuff that loses me. I think it's a fight that was conjured by the owners with poor management and market awareness to begin with. I agree that what's happened to date is but prologue and they need to deal with the situation now and that perhaps this is the least painful way for them. I wonder, though, if eliminating a handful of teams, thereby creating a smaller player base upon which to jack up arbitration awards, etc., and giving the remaining owners a larger piece of the overall pie wouldn't be the better answer. It used to be in a free market that Coke would simply try to be better than Pepsi and increase market-share and, therefore, profits that way. Now, they don't compete. They just beat the **** out their employees to get more profits. That ain't free market. It isnt' in the NHL, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an addict

I was. Always have been. As I get older, though, and have less patience with nonsense, and now that I've had 2 seasons in 6 (is it 6? I keep typing 6, but I'm not sure) cancelled due to utter nonsense, I've found other things to occupy my time and my interest.

I suppose when it comes back I may tune in from time to time. Maybe if the flyers are doing well I'll get caught up in the hype. But here's something I glaringly aware of, particularly about myself:

I already watched a hell of a lot less since the last lockout than I did before. Some of it's age. Some of it was a break in habit. The aging thing obviously isn't stopping, and I'm thinking this will be a further blow to the habit thing.

By the way, I was an avid baseball fan up until the 94 strike. It took nearly 10-15 years for me to start watching baseball again. And even now it's not even close to what it was before. I imagine quite similar will happen with the NHL for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

I used to go to a number of Leaf games. Ya, I know, but it's not like I'm driving to Philly every Saturday. Now I just go to Barrie Colts games. For one the on ice product is better. And for two I can practically get season tickets for the price of ONE Leaf game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the "fight that needs to happen" stuff that loses me.

I didn't say it doesn't suck. I got serious issues with both sides in this ( I just play with Rod and Rad ). Why I say this is a fight that has to happen is you got this problem that took a decade or so to get into (owners fault but also the players , I didn't see them complaining). Now, it seems, everyone wants to get out of the mess in 1 negotiation. I say NOOOO, "it took you 10 years to get into the mess and it will likely take 10 years to get out. 2 analogies I like.... It took the USA 50+ (some say well over a 100) years to get this far into debt but both Presidential candidates acted like they could get us out of it in a mere 4 years... Not gonna happen. And the mess in the NHL isn't all the owners fault. Analogy 2: The owners are giving up contracts like a crack dealer but the players are the addicts buying it. Then the players get on their high horse and say how screwed up ownership is. They are right but that is only half the story and the players need to realize that because right now it's pretty clear the owners are saying "yep, this is broke and we need to fix it" but the players don't want them to... Boil it down and it is that simple. The debate comes down to how and details of coarse but the basic concept is simple. Another analogy would be you got an addict who says he screwed up and wants to get better but everyone says NO and offers no help because he screwed up in the past. No second chances??? I thought that's what we were supposed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it doesn't suck. I got serious issues with both sides in this ( I just play with Rod and Rad ). Why I say this is a fight that has to happen is you got this problem that took a decade or so to get into (owners fault but also the players , I didn't see them complaining). Now, it seems, everyone wants to get out of the mess in 1 negotiation. I say NOOOO, "it took you 10 years to get into the mess and it will likely take 10 years to get out. 2 analogies I like.... It took the USA 50+ (some say well over a 100) years to get this far into debt but both Presidential candidates acted like they could get us out of it in a mere 4 years... Not gonna happen. And the mess in the NHL isn't all the owners fault. Analogy 2: The owners are giving up contracts like a crack dealer but the players are the addicts buying it. Then the players get on their high horse and say how screwed up ownership is. They are right but that is only half the story and the players need to realize that because right now it's pretty clear the owners are saying "yep, this is broke and we need to fix it" but the players don't want them to... Boil it down and it is that simple. The debate comes down to how and details of coarse but the basic concept is simple. Another analogy would be you got an addict who says he screwed up and wants to get better but everyone says NO and offers no help because he screwed up in the past. No second chances??? I thought that's what we were supposed to do.

I really do have a problem with the "mess" stuff. The reason being is that there is NO mess. The first analogy, from where I sit, fails because you're comparing an actual crisis with an artificially created one.

The owners (collectively) made money hand over fist since the last lockout. The players made money hand over fist. They've successfully built their brand despite ending their games with a skills competition. They finally have a national television contract that actually looks like a national television contract. So what do they do? They create a fantasy "mess" and shut the whole damn thing down and stop all the momentum they've built.

I haven't been on the board much and haven't read rad's and rod's positions, but I am guessing that theirs is a pro-labor position. While I typically would sympathize, I don't even see it as a labor vs. the man thing. It's completely conjured. Sure, there are owners NOT doing well, and that's what this is about. But I don't care if the players play for free and do it while being sodomized by the lawyers of the owners (I actually literally mean the players on the ice with a lawyer dude attached to the back of them), the owners that are failing will continue to fail.

Why?

They are playing hockey in Arizona, Tennesee, and Florida, for Christ sake. And there are some owners that couldn't get change from a soda machine. As a league, they made a huge amount of money and a huge amount of profit since the lockout. This has nothing to do with a real crisis facing the owners that just has to be addressed. It's not something that's build over ten years. It's something that started when they idiotically put hockey in the desert and the everglades. They want to force the players to go to 50/50? That's fine by me. I don't think that's unreasonable, actually. If they want to place a harder cap and a salary limit based on seniority, that's fine (although that's not free-market, by the way). But this "oh, we have to avert disaster" crap is just that. As is the "yep, it's broke" stuff. It's complete fantasy.

"Another analogy would be you got an addict who says he screwed up and wants to get better but everyone says NO and offers no help because he screwed up in the past. No second chances??? I thought that's what we were supposed to do"

I don't get this one. This isn't about an addict screwing it up, although both sides seem to be allowing this to be the story line. This is about going into markets that don't work. The out of control contract situation can be fixed if that was actually the problem and the owners were serious about it. The players would kick and scream, but at least they'd be kicking and screaming about something that is actually a problem. As for the second chances, maybe. But I don't agree with the "that's what we were supposed to do" thing. Not when we're raising the banner of "free market" on the one hand and begging for a "do-over" on the other. The two things don't co-exist...or shouldn't. If the owners honestly think their behavior has put them in a bad position (it hasn't), then they should, with honesty, negotiate (they are not). But again, most of this is fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, if the owners were concerned at all about "fixing" it, the answer is

1) 50/50 with players

2) Grandfather players while placing salary dollar and term limits

3) Reduce the cap again

4) Eliminate 5-6 teams. This is important and something the PA would fight. At least now you could point to the PA trying to block the fix of something that IS a problem. Doing this would eliminate 100-120 union jobs (minimum). Currently, arbitration is actually a bigger problem than free agency. Here's why: You have a watered down league with too many "average" players at best. Because there are more defense positions than actually good defensemen, you have average Joe who has a decent year get $3M as a dman because owner Jack/GM George is scared to loose him. Objectively, the numbers are only "eh" but he shows promise. The following year, average Jim goes to arbitration with similar numbers and also gets $3M because he can point to Joe. And so on. And this number slowly creeps up. Now, you also have a group with above average numbers where this has similar effect, but at the $4-6M range. So that now, when you're a star and can point to numbers quite better than this, you can demand your $8-$10 million for 27 years.

If you eliminate the 100 and 5 teams, your left with roughly 4 extra players per team looking for a job. In many team's cases your upgrading your second or third pair on defense or 2nd or third lines or whatever. But the point being that you get rid of some of the players that are playing simply because there are too many positions that have to be filled. And all of those can point to others who have or have had jobs for the same reason and start jacking up the bottom numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there are owners NOT doing well, and that's what this is about.

Rux, you need to read through Vanflyers posts in the Rant thread which breaks down how the Owners are "losing" money. Kudos to him for following through and wading through a ton of crap to find it. Even the Columbus Franchise has almost DOUBLED in Value since it's inception......80 mil to 150 mil in less than 12 years...How the hell is that losing money? This is Columbus we are talking about...you know, the worst run team in the league? You hit the nail on the head with the artificially created mess. After the players last proposal, they moved around 1 BILLION dollars towards the Owners and that is still not enough? Bettman still does not understand that he is up against the players and not Fehr. His refusal of this last offer WILL send even the moderate Union people to stand with the hard liners after this. This last refusal on Bettman's part WITHOUT any movement on his side except for telling the players they have not moved far enough is ridiculous. If his goal is to alienate fans, players, and even some of the owners who will now be trying to move forward in spite of Bettman, then I say he has surpassed his goal.

Yes, you guessed right on me. I am behind the players 100%. I have hated Bettman since he was hired...more than even Bettman hates Fehr by now........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wife and I make an annual pilgrimage to Detroit and the Joe, we buy the NHL package on cable, we go to every game the Wings play in Nationwide which is less than an hour from our home, We go to a half dozen games a year against other teams. When we travel, we go to Sport cards stores to buy cards and autographs and whatnot. For Christmas, not kidding I told my wife to order me a Kansas City Scouts jersey. My library of hockey books goes at least 200 deep. We live and breath the game.

I feel betrayed by both sides. I don't give a damn who is wrong or right I want Hockey! I will be back, like a wife who keeps going back to abusive husband, I am sick of football and miss MY sport. It is nice telling someone you are a hockey nut and getting the curious looks from people who do not and never will understand the sport. We are doing family photos at Sears with my wife and I and five kids and the oldest fours spouses with everyone wearing a hockey jersey, including my eight month old grandson in his Wings jersey, (He has outgrown the first two, lol). I even have nearly 100,000 hockey cards, sorted and cataloged.

I am disabled, I am on a heart transplant list and look forward to hockey to fill the time in. Boo on both sides. Just give us some damn hockey.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the Columbus Franchise has almost DOUBLED in Value since it's inception

Doubling the value of a franchise doesn't make you money until you decide to sell. Until you do you have to ACTUALLY make money or your "doubling" of money can get real stickey when weighed against the debt accumulated. You don't make or lose money on a stock until you choose to sell it... Same with gold. Same with hockey franchises. You can double your investment but lose money every year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly

The point is the teams are NOT losing money at the rates they claim to be. Their own FUCCKING tax filings say different. If the Owners can't bring themselves to make a 1.5 mil per team difference after the players made a concession of almost 5 times that, I say end the damn league and screw the owners. De-certify the union and sue those miserable prick$ for every thing they have got. I still care at this point and want to see hockey but not at the cost of the players principles.SCREW THOSE MONEY HUNGRY BASTARD OWNERS!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

De-certify the union and sue those miserable prick$ for every thing they have got.

Rod, you are so ingrained on the union side there is no talking to you and it's spiraling out of control each day. You are more bitter than ever. Look, the owners started this. Totally agree.

I didn't see your shout box post to me from last night until now because of LOTs of work... but, I have no ownership woreship. Really I don't. I have tried to explain the simple economics over and over again. I actually don't like it either but I can seperate my ideaology, my wants and desires and set aside what is fair (because life has made it abundantly clear to me it isn't) and look at the big picture.

Taxes- you seriously need to look at tax law. Not picking a fight or anything here. DON'T go by what a return says. You can make anything sound like anything you want. Different subsidiaries, who's budget does profits and expenses go on and I could list a million more, all legal. Some corps NEED to show a profit for one reason while their competator NEEDS to show a loss. Most likely they will find a way... and I'm not talking out my butt here. I have been to tax school. Just don't practice it now...

The players were making WAY more money last year than the year after the last lockout that they suposedly lost horrible. The players were fine. But some teams are not fine. Teams need owners. Owners need investors. Investors need stability. When half your teams are struggling and then YOU need a loan for YOUR team the investors are far and few between. Ask Phoenix! Situations like that are business killers. Eventually you just run out of investors willing to take you on and beyond that the valuation doesn't matter if the debt load wipes it out...

Valuation- Is not profit. To get that profit the owners/investors have to sell a team. To get yearly operating funds a team has to actually generate positive income or ask investors to cover the shortfall. Once again, if I was an investor i wouldn't be investing in a NHL team. I'm not giving them more money so they can ask me next year for more because they lost money AGAIN. So, back to valuation, which seems to be a favorite of yours. It's kinda like an appraisal. Just because they say your house is 200K doesn't mean you are gonna get 200K. Maybe more, maybe less. But, lets say they are spot on and the Blue Jackets are double what they were worth initialy worth, and lets further assume you can scrape together a group of investors to buy your team. Then walla! YOU made double your money. It does NOTHING for the players! And now the blue jackets have DOUBLED the debt because the brand new owners/investors paid the other guy the "double " valuation. Hmmmm... Seems the Blue Jackets just fuked themselves, to be blunt...That's why Phoenix is a mess.

Then there is the fundamental issue in everyone's discussion here. The owners screw up but want to fix it. They know this isn't good. The players say no. Walla! We got another Hostess scenerio. The players actually want to lose their jobs rather than take a pay cut for 1-2 years and then earn BOAT LOADS more money? Yes, that was a real question. In effect, the players are negotiating themselves out of a job, right now.

God have mercy on my sole but read this:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/EXACTLY-where-I-see-this-whole-mess-right-now--And-how-easy-it-is-to-fix/1/47652

also, the players have given a one time "give in" during these negotiations so to speak but it doesn't solve the problem. This isn't about one time payouts. It's about a new system or at the very least fixing the old one. Failure to do so on the owners part would be very bad and if you think this CBA was bad then just wait for the next one. The owners know this. And the owners have the responsibility to fix their mess for the investors. Period! End of story. The players need to step out of the way, accept the 50/50 because if they are smart they will get a 10 yr deal, even 8 would be great. And, by year 3 will be making WAY more money than they are now if the league can get to functioning the way it needs to. Everyone will win. But the players need to get out of the way and the owners need to realize they need to make "whole " the current contracts, which they said they are willing to do...

and finally, we may disagree, but on a personal note Rod, I never said you were clueless. Please extend me the same small consideration... If I have insulted you in any way in the past you have my sincere apologies...

Idaho-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubling the value of a franchise doesn't make you money until you decide to sell. Until you do you have to ACTUALLY make money or your "doubling" of money can get real stickey when weighed against the debt accumulated. You don't make or lose money on a stock until you choose to sell it... Same with gold. Same with hockey franchises. You can double your investment but lose money every year.

I know the knee-jerk will be to argue this point because it seems counter-intuitive, but that is absolutely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not picking a fight or anything here. DON'T go by what a return says. You can make anything sound like anything you want. Different subsidiaries, who's budget does profits and expenses go on and I could list a million more, all legal. Some corps NEED to show a profit for one reason while their competator NEEDS to show a loss

I know you don't need me to validate your points, but when you are right, boy are you really right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask Phoenix! Situations like that are business killers

Yes, they are. But not because they are paying players too much. It's because they put hockey in the desert. Seriously. If you try to sell ice at the North Pole, what you're paying your cashier is of very little relevance. Your product just makes absolutely no sense.

Your lack of profit selling Bibles in Tehran probably has nothing whatsoever to do with your manager's health plan. Selling clothes in a nudist colony....you get the point.

It's the product in utterly stupid places--Columbus is another fantastic example--and it has had ugly consequences vis-a-vis salary bloating. You haven't commented on this "theory," by the way. Since you obviously have some experience with GL's, business planning , etc., I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...