NHL 2012-2013 Season- Let's do this. Games start January 19

They'd be crazy to lockout the whole season. You have to remember, this was the owners doing this. The players were fine just renewing the existing deal. The owners are trying to claim that they've been losing money, but everything I've seen has shown an increase in revenue since the last lockout. Another factor and HUGE money maker that they didn't have in 2005 was the Winter Classic. Losing the revenue that that event brings in would just be foolish. It's sad, but it appears that both sides will have to start losing money before they can begin to work together. But my guess is we'll see hockey before Thanksgiving.
 
[quote name='shieryda']Has a 2012-13 thread been started yet? I'd be happy to, unless anyone has any objections.[/QUOTE]

I'd hold off for now, there might not even be a season.
 
[quote name='sendme']It could always be updated with news from the talks.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but there's only so many times you can post "Millionaires arguing".
 
The league posted record revenues: 3.3 billion. The owners would be absolutely stupid to lockout the league. The NHL has been on the rise since the last lockout and another one would kill that. I don't understand why the owners want the players to take such a big cut. 57/43 is a lot for the players which is the current one, but why the hell cant they compromise at 50/50 or 49/51? Greedy bastards all around might cost us hockey
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='slickkill77']The league posted record revenues: 3.3 billion. The owners would be absolutely stupid to lockout the league. The NHL has been on the rise since the last lockout and another one would kill that. I don't understand why the owners want the players to take such a big cut. 57/43 is a lot for the players which is the current one, but why the hell cant they compromise at 50/50 or 49/51? Greedy bastards all around might cost us hockey[/QUOTE]

The split already is 50/50 if you look at total revenue and not "hockey related revenue" as they want to define it

It's rich people telling less-rich people they'll get nothing and like it, welcome to capitalist America
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']The split already is 50/50 if you look at total revenue and not "hockey related revenue" as they want to define it

It's rich people telling less-rich people they'll get nothing and like it, welcome to capitalist America[/QUOTE]

Oh ok. I wasn't sure of the specifics.
 
I'm not sure I understand that distinction, shieryda. Especially when the news reports are all saying "lock out," along with the unanimous NHL owners' vote from Thursday.
 
I think it is that they have till the training camps start to get a CBA. If they don't have one by then, then the lockout starts. With the way both sides are acting I don't see an agreement before then.
 
Well we got players signing over in Europe already. Any guesses on when the NHL will start up? I'm going to guess November. Deep inside though I fear there will be no NHL until after the new year.
 
[quote name='shieryda']No official lock-out, just no new CBA and more talks to be scheduled before training camps begin:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=641628[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's more of a technicality than anything. All it means is that nothing has had to be officially cancelled yet. But Bettman stated numerous times, without a new CBA, there will be no hockey. I'd also be surprised if either side is very eager to talk at this point. It seems the writing is on the wall.
 
Seems like Bettman and the owners don't even want to have a season just to stick it to the players. The people it hurts more though are the fans. I'm wondering if the NHL can even recover. Hell if their is a season I might just say the hell with it and start watching the CHL team St. Charles MO just got.
 
Players have a point - the last CBA they accepted was hand delivered by the NHL, so it's the owners' design.

In that time, popularity and profits have only grown. Now they want to roll it back to benefit the owners. It makes sense in that smaller market teams have a hard time being profitable (maybe you shouldn't have matched Philly's offer on Shea Weber, then, Nashville). Bettman's expansion experimentalism has not worked, so perhaps it's time to move teams like Phoenix to areas where they are wanted and will do well.

Propping up failed markets on the backs of players is poor policy. We'll either have hockey around Thanksgiving, or not at all.

Can someone who recalls the 2004 lockout tell me when the season was formally cancelled? I didn't really watch at the time.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Yeah, that's more of a technicality than anything. All it means is that nothing has had to be officially cancelled yet. But Bettman stated numerous times, without a new CBA, there will be no hockey. I'd also be surprised if either side is very eager to talk at this point. It seems the writing is on the wall.[/QUOTE]

That is what I implied. That the entire season hadn't been cancelled yet.
 
The season in 04-05 was cancelled sometime in February though I don't remember the date. I remember cause it was around my birthday.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It makes sense in that smaller market teams have a hard time being profitable (maybe you shouldn't have matched Philly's offer on Shea Weber, then, Nashville). Bettman's expansion experimentalism has not worked, so perhaps it's time to move teams like Phoenix to areas where they are wanted and will do well.[/QUOTE]

That's kind of a shitty argument because the entire purpose of the salary cap is to prevent things like that from happening. Nashville had no choice but to match the Weber offer. If they hadn't, it would basically be telling fans "Hey, you know that winning we've been doing lately? Yeah...we can't afford to keep that up. Hope you still come to the games!" Not matching offers like that just causes small market teams to become farm clubs for big market teams.

And when the league reaches that level, what's the point? At least Nashville could recognize that you have to spend money to make money. Even if they didn't like it, it was the right move to make...and like I said, their only other option is to let their biggest star and team captain leave, and lose the revenue from fan support. Either way, the team takes a hit financially.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, based on that logic, why didn't they keep Suter?[/QUOTE]

They tried. But Suter took the deal without giving Nashville a chance to match it. Plus, he's from Wisconsin (and his wife grew up in Minnesota). He got a chance to make a lot of money and play closer to his wife and kids for the rest of his career. It's not exactly shocking that he'd take that offer.

You can read all about it here.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/predators/story/2012-07-11/ryan-suter/56145140/1
 
I'm pissed because Frozen Fury is canceled. I have a ticket, and I wanted to see my Stanley Cup champs open up their preseason in Vegas.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']I'm pissed because Frozen Fury is canceled. I have a ticket, and I wanted to see my Stanley Cup champs open up their preseason in Vegas.[/QUOTE]

Yup, the Preds game my wife got us tickets for got cancelled too. This is such a stupid lockout. I get that the teams need financial stability. But without the players, you have no product. Unless they want to march a bunch of beer league players out there and see if people will pay to watch them kill each other and fall down a lot.

When the league is increasing revenue, that should be a sign that you're doing something right. Why would you overhaul of the system completely in that case? You just need some tweaking. At the very least, if the owners are going to argue that player salaries need to come down, then they should also be arguing that ticket prices and merchandise would come down. After all...if it's because of "the economy", then that should apply across the board.

And really, if the split was already 50/50, then that should be good enough. But as high as the owners would go was 46%. So, they think they bring more to the game than the players do... Come on. If the NHL didn't exist, the players could still make a decent living playing in Europe (as many of them are). What the hell would the owners do if the league didn't exist? 50/50 is as fair as you're going to get. And now they're losing money just out of spite. It's stupid.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Yup, the Preds game my wife got us tickets for got cancelled too. This is such a stupid lockout. I get that the teams need financial stability. But without the players, you have no product. Unless they want to march a bunch of beer league players out there and see if people will pay to watch them kill each other and fall down a lot.

When the league is increasing revenue, that should be a sign that you're doing something right. Why would you overhaul of the system completely in that case? You just need some tweaking. At the very least, if the owners are going to argue that player salaries need to come down, then they should also be arguing that ticket prices and merchandise would come down. After all...if it's because of "the economy", then that should apply across the board.

And really, if the split was already 50/50, then that should be good enough. But as high as the owners would go was 46%. So, they think they bring more to the game than the players do... Come on. If the NHL didn't exist, the players could still make a decent living playing in Europe (as many of them are). What the hell would the owners do if the league didn't exist? 50/50 is as fair as you're going to get. And now they're losing money just out of spite. It's stupid.[/QUOTE]

I would be willing to watch a bunch of beer league players as long as tickets were not the same price for NHL level players. Hell bring in some of the AHL or CHL players. If the St. Charles Chill were to start up this year I would say the hell with the NHL and just got watch some CHL games.
 
[quote name='sendme']I would be willing to watch a bunch of beer league players as long as tickets were not the same price for NHL level players. Hell bring in some of the AHL or CHL players. If the St. Charles Chill were to start up this year I would say the hell with the NHL and just got watch some CHL games.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but the prices can't solely be based on the talent level of the players. The team still has to pay for the arena, pay for travel, hotel, etc. I'm sure they could scale it back some...but what you'd basically be left with IS the AHL. That's what the NHL needs to figure out. Can it function with stability at such a high level...because that's just going to be expensive...no matter how you divvy up the pie.

Though, honestly, at the end of the day, the players are likely going to have to buckle. If you're making $10 million playing in the NHL...and the next best offer you could get playing overseas is $6 million, what's to stop them from cutting your salary to $7 million? They're the boss...and it's still better than you could do anywhere else. So, what are you going to do? It doesn't make it right, but if that's what they feel like doing, you're kind of screwed. Unless you're willing to play for even less just out of principle, you're just going to have to bend over and say "ah" like the rest of us, lol.
 
I wasn't talking 10 bucks for glass seats. Hell I'm just talking drop the price maybe 10 or 15 percent. Same with the merchandiser.

As for what the players make the way I see it they are just like any other person that does contracted work. Once that labor agreement is over you may not make the same. If I worked for a company that was represented by the Teamsters, then when that contract was up I may not make the same. Also do you really need more than 5 million over 2 years?

Depending on what the players have to pay they don't need as much as they get. Sure if travel expenses, medical and some sort of retirement come out of that then they need enough to cover the cost of all that then give them money for themselves. Hell they need something in case they can never play hockey again so some sort of disability is needed and again some sort of retirement is needed also. If they get all that and the 5 million over 2 years then they don't need that much money but if all that comes out of the 5 million then hell they could use more.
 
I think that the records of some of the AHL teams will improve significantly this year with some of the younger guys getting assigned to their respective farm teams.

Need to check the Wolves roster here and determine if it would be worth it to try and see some potential NHL stars.
 
[quote name='sendme']I wasn't talking 10 bucks for glass seats. Hell I'm just talking drop the price maybe 10 or 15 percent. Same with the merchandiser.

As for what the players make the way I see it they are just like any other person that does contracted work. Once that labor agreement is over you may not make the same. If I worked for a company that was represented by the Teamsters, then when that contract was up I may not make the same. Also do you really need more than 5 million over 2 years?

Depending on what the players have to pay they don't need as much as they get. Sure if travel expenses, medical and some sort of retirement come out of that then they need enough to cover the cost of all that then give them money for themselves. Hell they need something in case they can never play hockey again so some sort of disability is needed and again some sort of retirement is needed also. If they get all that and the 5 million over 2 years then they don't need that much money but if all that comes out of the 5 million then hell they could use more.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Nobody needs to make that much money (though there definitely are far worse offenders in professional sports than hockey players). But if the money saved is just going straight into the owners' pockets then we're not going to see any differences anyway. That's why I feel like the owners would have a much stronger case and be able to make the players look greedy if they were actually pushing the "lower salaries mean lower costs...which means more fans...which means stability for the league" agenda. The way it feels now is just too sides arguing "I'm not getting enough money!" when in reality, the fans are the ones footing the bill.
 
The owners are also getting way to much money. Hell they are not the ones out on the ice risking the chance of a career ending injury. I really think prices for tickets and merchandise needs to come down or wages for the employees at the arenas should go up. The players, coaching staff, managers, owners and everyone else I'm sure make more than what they need to. Everyone not employed by the NHL is where the sales for the arenas needs to go to. I'm sure some of it is but a larger cut needs to go to the arenas for their staff.

Really all this is, is pointless arguing between the players and owners that has the fans paying for it and hurting the NHL. If their is no 2012-2013 season then I don't see the NHL bouncing back from another lockout when the next CBA is up.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']The way it feels now is just too sides arguing "I'm not getting enough money!" when in reality, the fans are the ones footing the bill.[/QUOTE]

Fans directly finance very little in any professional sport. Player salaries and league revenues exploded because of TV deals, not ticket sales or merchandise.

Fans are still a part of it because someone has to watch the games on TV and see the commercials, but that can be done without paying a single cent to the league.
 
I'm assuming that all these players signing with other leagues and that KHL will be broadcasted here means were not going to have a season... ?
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']I'm assuming that all these players signing with other leagues and that KHL will be broadcasted here means were not going to have a season... ?[/QUOTE]

You've heard of preparing for the worst, no?
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']You've heard of preparing for the worst, no?[/QUOTE]

Well, these guys are signing a contract so they are obligated to play the whole season for who ever they sign with or they can just be pulled out by the NHL team... ?
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']Well, these guys are signing a contract so they are obligated to play the whole season for who ever they sign with or they can just be pulled out by the NHL team... ?[/QUOTE]

They most likely have an opt out clause in their contract that allows them to leave for the NHL once an agreement is reached.
 
I wish there was another sport I could pick up... Wish auto racing was broadcast more here... unfortunately, NasCrap is it...
 
Watch Formula 1 if you can. Just have to usually watch in the mornings if you're living in North America. Though I don't even know if the season is still going on at this point. I haven't payed attention the last 4 years or so.

As for replacement players? No. It's an absolute joke. It would not compare to any of the top 5 European hockey leagues.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']I wish there was another sport I could pick up... Wish auto racing was broadcast more here... unfortunately, NasCrap is it...[/QUOTE]

If you want to get into soccer now's a good time. You got the Euro league seasons such as EPL and La Liga starting plus our own league MLS is starting to head towards the playoffs. The Eastern Conference race alone has gotten quite fun tho now its down to five teams fighting for places 2nd to 5th to get into the playoff hunt with New York, Columbus, DC United, Houston, and right now Columbus is barely on the outside looking in... and Montreal technically is kinda still in but IMO I don't see them making it.
 
bread's done
Back
Top