2438 replies to this topic

[deluca67]

spndnchz, on 15 June 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Why shouldn't the Sabres get rewarded for meeting league mandates and having a revenue-growth rate that matches or exceeds that of the league average?  I might argue the 2.5 million people part although I have no problem taking a few million dollars from the likes of NY, LA, Philly, Chicago and Boston.

Because it goes against the spirit of the program. It;s like finding out your neighbor with the brand new Lexus and the brand new 70" HD 3D TV is collecting a welfare check. There is just something fundamentally wrong with it.

[SwampD]

DeLuca67, on 16 June 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

Because it goes against the spirit of the program. It;s like finding out your neighbor with the brand new Lexus and the brand new 70" HD 3D TV is collecting a welfare check. There is just something fundamentally wrong with it.

So, only owners in big markets are allowed to make money on their team, while owners in small markets have to use their own money?  That doesn't make any sense.  They are competing teams in a sports league, not competing resaraunt chains.  Resaraunts don't need each other to survive.  Teams need other teams in order to have a product to sell.

I have no problem with the Sabres taking revenue sharing, as long as it goes back into the team and not into their pockets (like the Montreal Expos a few years back).

[deluca67]

SwampD, on 16 June 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

So, only owners in big markets are allowed to make money on their team, while owners in small markets have to use their own money?  That doesn't make any sense.  They are competing teams in a sports league, not competing resaraunt chains.  Resaraunts don't need each other to survive.  Teams need other teams in order to have a product to sell.

I have no problem with the Sabres taking revenue sharing, as long as it goes back into the team and not into their pockets (like the Montreal Expos a few years back).

Where did anyone say Pegula shouldn't be allow to make money. You're confusing the issues. If the business plan is to throw caution to the wind and spend spend spend, the top revenue teams shouldn't be expected to subsidize that team. It makes no sense to give a team $10 mil that is spending $30 million over their revenues (numbers are for example, not actual numbers involved).

[SwampD]

DeLuca67, on 16 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Where did anyone say Pegula shouldn't be allow to make money. You're confusing the issues. If the business plan is to throw caution to the wind and spend spend spend, the top revenue teams shouldn't be expected to subsidize that team. It makes no sense to give a team $10 mil that is spending $30 million over their revenues (numbers are for example, not actual numbers involved).

I still disagree.

Non-hockey money should be, and is, irrelevant in revenue sharing.

[deluca67]

SwampD, on 16 June 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

I still disagree.

Non-hockey money should be, and is, irrelevant in revenue sharing.

I don't consider front loaded contracts (actual cash out) as "non-hockey."  I wasn't taking paint and rug money into account.

[SwampD]

DeLuca67, on 16 June 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

I don't consider front loaded contracts (actual cash out) as "non-hockey."  I wasn't taking paint and rug money into account.

I know that you usually play contrarian here, but what's the problem?  The rules are the rules until they change 'em, and it's not like all contracts aren't approved by the league.  I say whatever it takes to keep an interested owner in Buffalo to eventually win us a GD Cup, I'm all for.

[Arcsabresfan41]

Would the cup feel the same to you guys if won in a season cut in half due to the labor dispute? I know we don't have a team built for the cup yet, just curious if it would feel...tainted, or something.

[IKnowPhysics]

Not really, as long as we played >35 games or so and full playoffs.  The reason the Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy to win in sports is because of the grueling playoffs, not necessarily because of the long season.  The only thing the regular season has to do with the Cup is determining who gets to compete for the cup and the seeding.  As we've seen lately, seeding doesn't have to mean much.

I know playoff contention comes down to tiebreakers even with a full 82 games season, but there's some number of games that's less than 82 that result in a good representation of the best teams competing for the cup.  My guess is that the number could be around 35 or so.  That would correspond to a season that started in October on time and ended at December 31st.  The NHL points standings (not adjusted for games played) at 12/31 were as follows:

NYR
Boston
Florida
Philly
Pittsburgh
New Jersey
Winnipeg
Ottawa

Chicago
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Detroit
Minnesota
St Louis
Nashville
Dallas

Only one team in the east is different (Washington for Winnipeg), two teams in the west (Phoenix and San Jose for Dallas and Minnesota).  I think that's a reasonable group of teams to compete for the cup, as compared to an 82 game reality.

[OverPowerYou]

IKnowPhysics, on 16 June 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Not really, as long as we played >35 games or so and full playoffs.  The reason the Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy to win in sports is because of the grueling playoffs, not necessarily because of the long season.  The only thing the regular season has to do with the Cup is determining who gets to compete for the cup and the seeding.  As we've seen lately, seeding doesn't have to mean much.

I know playoff contention comes down to tiebreakers even with a full 82 games season, but there's some number of games that's less than 82 that result in a good representation of the best teams competing for the cup.  My guess is that the number could be around 35 or so.  That would correspond to a season that started in October on time and ended at December 31st.  The NHL points standings (not adjusted for games played) at 12/31 were as follows:

NYR
Boston
Florida
Philly
Pittsburgh
New Jersey
Winnipeg
Ottawa

Chicago
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Detroit
Minnesota
St Louis
Nashville
Dallas

Only one team in the east is different (Washington for Winnipeg), two teams in the west (Phoenix and San Jose for Dallas and Minnesota).  I think that's a reasonable group of teams to compete for the cup, as compared to an 82 game reality.

One might argue that the Rangers would've beaten New Jersey and then L.A. to win the cup if they weren't so fatigued. They got that way because of the long season AND the grueling playoffs. If they had 20-40 less games off their hands I think the cup would go to NY this year instead of L.A.

Edited by OverPowerYou, 16 June 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[SDS]

IKnowPhysics, on 16 June 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Not really, as long as we played >35 games or so and full playoffs.  The reason the Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy to win in sports is because of the grueling playoffs, not necessarily because of the long season.  The only thing the regular season has to do with the Cup is determining who gets to compete for the cup and the seeding.  As we've seen lately, seeding doesn't have to mean much.

I know playoff contention comes down to tiebreakers even with a full 82 games season, but there's some number of games that's less than 82 that result in a good representation of the best teams competing for the cup.  My guess is that the number could be around 35 or so.  That would correspond to a season that started in October on time and ended at December 31st.  The NHL points standings (not adjusted for games played) at 12/31 were as follows:

NYR
Boston
Florida
Philly
Pittsburgh
New Jersey
Winnipeg
Ottawa

Chicago
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Detroit
Minnesota
St Louis
Nashville
Dallas

Only one team in the east is different (Washington for Winnipeg), two teams in the west (Phoenix and San Jose for Dallas and Minnesota).  I think that's a reasonable group of teams to compete for the cup, as compared to an 82 game reality.

How did you find the standings at a certain date?

[SwampD]

SDS, on 16 June 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

How did you find the standings at a certain date?

http://www.shrpsport...m/nhl/stand.htm

[deluca67]

SwampD, on 16 June 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

I know that you usually play contrarian here, but what's the problem?  The rules are the rules until they change 'em, and it's not like all contracts aren't approved by the league.  I say whatever it takes to keep an interested owner in Buffalo to eventually win us a GD Cup, I'm all for.

It has to do with the raising of ticket prices the past two seasons. From what I understand, it was done to qualify for the revenue sharing. Considering the vast resources available to Pegula, I doubt the money received through revenue sharing will make any difference to Pegula or the Sabres ability to spend. So why is the additional financial burden put on the fans so Pegula can collect money that he clearly doesn't need? What happened to "just drilling another gas well?"

Edited by DeLuca67, 17 June 2012 - 06:09 AM.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

DeLuca67, on 17 June 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

It has to do with the raising of ticket prices the past two seasons. From what I understand, it was done to qualify for the revenue sharing. Considering the vast resources available to Pegula, I doubt the money received through revenue sharing will make any difference to Pegula or the Sabres ability to spend. So why is the additional financial burden put on the fans so Pegula can collect money that he clearly doesn't need? What happened to "just drilling another gas well?"

I agree with you here. I'd like to at least see an explanation from the Front Office. Is there some other benefit that comes along with revenue sharing? What was the motivation?

[SwampD]

LastPommerFan, on 18 June 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

I agree with you here. I'd like to at least see an explanation from the Front Office. Is there some other benefit that comes along with revenue sharing? What was the motivation?

Between the increased ticket prices and the revenue sharing it's probably about an extra 15 million the team will receive.  Isn't that motivation enough?  I think it is unreasonable to think that someone would turn that down.  And it's not like they are having a hard time sellin' the place out because the ticket prices are to high.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

SwampD, on 18 June 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Between the increased ticket prices and the revenue sharing it's probably about an extra 15 million the team will receive.  Isn't that motivation enough?  I think it is unreasonable to think that someone would turn that down.  And it's not like they are having a hard time sellin' the place out because the ticket prices are to high.

That's absolutely fine motivation, and i think it's a good course of action, I'd just like to hear that from Pegula since it goes directly against the previous comment.

[TrueBluePhD]

Aren't owners at least somewhat responsible for keeping their teams profitable, even if the owner himself is ridiculously wealthy?  Even if Pegula were willing to operate in the red for 20 years, that would diminish franchise value both for the Sabres and around the league.  These are businesses designed to make money, and if the NHL had a team that simply refused to take any steps to turn a profit, I'd have to imagine the league could give that team all kinds of grief.

Plus, this whole discussion about "drill another well" is bad logic in the first place.  Taken to its logical end point, it means we should all expect free tickets and merchandise because Pegula didn't buy the team to make money!  As I've previously said, I took his comment simply to mean that financials will have zero impact on the franchise's attempts to field a championship team....not that the franchise would eschew every business principle in the world.

[dEnnis the Menace]

TrueBluePhD, on 18 June 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Aren't owners at least somewhat responsible for keeping their teams profitable, even if the owner himself is ridiculously wealthy?  Even if Pegula were willing to operate in the red for 20 years, that would diminish franchise value both for the Sabres and around the league.  These are businesses designed to make money, and if the NHL had a team that simply refused to take any steps to turn a profit, I'd have to imagine the league could give that team all kinds of grief.

Plus, this whole discussion about "drill another well" is bad logic in the first place.  Taken to its logical end point, it means we should all expect free tickets and merchandise because Pegula didn't buy the team to make money!  As I've previously said, I took his comment simply to mean that financials will have zero impact on the franchise's attempts to field a championship team....not that the franchise would eschew every business principle in the world.

I've gotta agree with this.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

TrueBluePhD, on 18 June 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Aren't owners at least somewhat responsible for keeping their teams profitable, even if the owner himself is ridiculously wealthy?  Even if Pegula were willing to operate in the red for 20 years, that would diminish franchise value both for the Sabres and around the league.  These are businesses designed to make money, and if the NHL had a team that simply refused to take any steps to turn a profit, I'd have to imagine the league could give that team all kinds of grief.

Plus, this whole discussion about "drill another well" is bad logic in the first place.  Taken to its logical end point, it means we should all expect free tickets and merchandise because Pegula didn't buy the team to make money!  As I've previously said, I took his comment simply to mean that financials will have zero impact on the franchise's attempts to field a championship team....not that the franchise would eschew every business principle in the world.

Yes, exactly, I think there had to have been some outside pressure to keep the team at least close to the black. Remember, reduced revenue for 1 team means reduced total HRR and thus reduced Revenue for all owners and players. He would piss a lot of people off running the Sabres revenue into the ground. I think raising the prices to qualify for revenue sharing is just the point at which that pressure backs off. I'd still just like to hear something about why the prices went up. They are cheap tickets, but they are not the cheapest in the league.

Edited by LastPommerFan, 18 June 2012 - 09:22 AM.

[Spndnchz]

Fehr says negotiations with the league will begin very quickly after the end of Wednesday's meeting.

[Taro T]

spndnchz, on 25 June 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Fehr says negotiations with the league will begin very quickly after the end of Wednesday's meeting.

Good.

If anybody but Fehr or Goodenow were running the union I'd absolutely expect the deal to get done prior to October 1.

I honestly believe even Fehr and these owners won't be dumb enough to kill the goose, so I'm hopeful they get a deal done in time for me to watch the Sabres take on the Pens.  But until I see your link to the announcement that a deal is done, I'm a believer in the mantra 'the only thing we have to fear is Fehr itself.'

[Spndnchz]

Taro T, on 25 June 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Good.

If anybody but Fehr or Goodenow were running the union I'd absolutely expect the deal to get done prior to October 1.

I honestly believe even Fehr and these owners won't be dumb enough to kill the goose, so I'm hopeful they get a deal done in time for me to watch the Sabres take on the Pens.  But until I see your link to the announcement that a deal is done, I'm a believer in the mantra 'the only thing we have to fear is Fehr itself.'

Fehr also said he'd be okay with playing without a new CBA to start the year.  Not since early 90's has that happened.

[TrueBluePhD]

spndnchz, on 25 June 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Fehr also said he'd be okay with playing without a new CBA to start the year.  Not since early 90's has that happened.

Translation:  Owners, please don't use a lockout to gain leverage over the players.  Pretty please with a cherry on top.

In all honesty I just think it's PR posturing.  He's already trying to paint the owners as the "bad guys" if they lock the players out.

Edited by TrueBluePhD, 25 June 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Taro T]

spndnchz, on 25 June 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Fehr also said he'd be okay with playing without a new CBA to start the year.  Not since early 90's has that happened.

Not even remotely surprising that he'd say that.  Players don't strike at the beginning of the year when they haven't been paid and have little leverage.  Players strike at the end of the year, when they've gotten the bulk of their money and the owners' big $ item (the playoffs) are soon to begin.

Owners tried that once and got hosed.  I don't see them EVER starting a season without a CBA in place unless there is some sort of enforcable no-strike agreement from the players prior to the season beginning.

[IKnowPhysics]

TrueBluePhD, on 25 June 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

In all honesty I just think it's PR posturing.  He's already trying to paint the owners as the "bad guys" if they lock the players out.

It is, especially after the league publicly trashed the NHLPA for rejecting the realigment plan.

[Eleven]

Taro T, on 25 June 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Not even remotely surprising that he'd say that.  Players don't strike at the beginning of the year when they haven't been paid and have little leverage.  Players strike at the end of the year, when they've gotten the bulk of their money and the owners' big $ item (the playoffs) are soon to begin.

Owners tried that once and got hosed.  I don't see them EVER starting a season without a CBA in place unless there is some sort of enforcable no-strike agreement from the players prior to the season beginning.

Exactly, it's a Fehr tactic and no, I really don't intend a pun.  This guy is freaking diabolically clever, and that adverb isn't meant kindly, either.  I so hope I'm wrong, but I have little anticipation for October hockey.

[Taro T]

Eleven, on 25 June 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Exactly, it's a Fehr tactic and no, I really don't intend a pun.  This guy is freaking diabolically clever, and that adverb isn't meant kindly, either.  I so hope I'm wrong, but I have little anticipation for October hockey.

I'm certain that through September it will look like a deal won't get struck.  I'm hoping that they realize that they really do have to get this done before the season starts, and that come October 1 there is major movement on both sides.  (My hope is that is plays out the way the NFL negotiations went, minus the decertification / lawsuit drama.)

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Taro T, on 25 June 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

I'm certain that through September it will look like a deal won't get struck.  I'm hoping that they realize that they really do have to get this done before the season starts, and that come October 1 there is major movement on both sides.  (My hope is that is plays out the way the NFL negotiations went, minus the decertification / lawsuit drama.)

In all honesty.....Sabres best hope is a short season. Bills should be competitive into December as well so no big loss. Start in January for 50 games....works for me.

[Taro T]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 25 June 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

In all honesty.....Sabres best hope is a short season. Bills should be competitive into December as well so no big loss. Start in January for 50 games....works for me.

Though I wouldn't mind getting the rebate from the Sabres, I have little faith that the 2 sides would be able to come together after nuking ~ 1/2 the season.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Taro T, on 25 June 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Though I wouldn't mind getting the rebate from the Sabres, I have little faith that the 2 sides would be able to come together after nuking ~ 1/2 the season.

Rebate?....you deserve a class action settlement for 2007-2012.

[Heimdall]

OverPowerYou, on 16 June 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

One might argue that the Rangers would've beaten New Jersey and then L.A. to win the cup if they weren't so fatigued. They got that way because of the long season AND the grueling playoffs. If they had 20-40 less games off their hands I think the cup would go to NY this year instead of L.A.

The other teams didn't play any less games, so that point is pretty much mute.  if they are more fatigued then the other team then its bad coaching.

[TheMatrix31]

As someone who's found recent big-time interest in the league....I would hate a labor dispute. That would really put a crimp in things.

[Spndnchz]

He's also NOT putting a gag order on the players.  Bettman has put one on the BoG.

[PromoTheRobot]

Heimdall, on 26 June 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

The other teams didn't play any less games, so that point is pretty much mute.  if they are more fatigued then the other team then its bad coaching.

The word is MOOT, not mute.

PTR

[Spndnchz]

PromoTheRobot, on 26 June 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

The word is MOOT, not mute.

PTR

QUIET!  lol

[tom webster]

Taro T, on 25 June 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Not even remotely surprising that he'd say that.  Players don't strike at the beginning of the year when they haven't been paid and have little leverage.  Players strike at the end of the year, when they've gotten the bulk of their money and the owners' big $ item (the playoffs) are soon to begin.

Owners tried that once and got hosed.  I don't see them EVER starting a season without a CBA in place unless there is some sort of enforcable no-strike agreement from the players prior to the season beginning.

Since the players would sign up for extending the current CBA, why wouldn't thay play without a new one signed? It gets them exactly what they want.

[Eleven]

tom webster, on 26 June 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Since the players would sign up for extending the current CBA, why wouldn't thay play without a new one signed? It gets them exactly what they want.

The players would do  it.  The owners wouldn't go for it because it would allow the players to strike midseason.

[Taro T]

spndnchz, on 26 June 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

He's also NOT putting a gag order on the players.  Bettman has put one on the BoG.

What would be the point of telling ~700 players not to talk to the media?

Bettman asking his 30 bosses to STFU makes a lot more sense.

tom webster, on 26 June 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Since the players would sign up for extending the current CBA, why wouldn't thay play without a new one signed? It gets them exactly what they want.

Good point, and it just makes the point that Fehr stating that he's willing to start the season w/out a new CBA in place is purely posturing all the more obvious.

Eleven, on 26 June 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

The players would do  it.  The owners wouldn't go for it because it would allow the players to strike midseason.

Yep.  The owners have all the leverage at the beginning of the season which is why players get locked out.  I don't expect to see any major sport ever again begin a season again w/out a CBA in place or some relatively equivalent court order.  The NHL owners didn't like what happened back in '92 and I doubt many MLB owners were too happy with '94's results.

Though a lockout won't necessarilly be won by the owners - see the '94 NHL lockout for proof, (though it likely will be judged a win for the owners in the immediate euphoria of the deal being worked up - again, see the '94 lockout for proof) a strike absolutely won't be won by the owners.  And the owners won't give the players the opportunity to strike.

[shrader]

Taro T, on 26 June 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Good point, and it just makes the point that Fehr stating that he's willing to start the season w/out a new CBA in place is purely posturing all the more obvious.

We see it in every one of these negotiations now across all sports.  Each side immediately tries to look good in the public eye instead of actually doing the important things like talking.

[Eleven]

shrader, on 26 June 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

We see it in every one of these negotiations now across all sports.  Each side immediately tries to look good in the public eye instead of actually doing the important things like talking.

It's like--they--they read this board!

(Just so we're clear, yes, that includes me, and yes, it's in jest.)

Edited by Eleven, 26 June 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[LGR4GM]

Just happen to turn on my TV to YES network and holy sh!t they are discussing the Hockey CBA.  They made some good points that I never really considered.  Things like how the candian dollar has gone up so much compared to the us dollar in 05.  How the cap floor is forcing a lot of teams to lose money.  How the league is very popular right now but non traditional hockey markets cant afford a lockout.  NHL relies heavily on putting butts in seats.  Finally how the problem sharing revenue hurts teams like the Leafs but is necessary to help teams like the (insert any team that got revenue sharing) so it made me think their are major problems going forward and I just hope they figure out a way to lower the cap floor (make it say 20-22mil below the cap now?) and a way to split league revenue so the players get what they deserve and the owners can still afford to pay them.