New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by calgARI '07
New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 01, 2005 09:06PM
[www.sportsnet.ca]
6years
There is still a cap, but it is not set in stone
4 years players can re-open
There will be healthcare and insurance, but it will fit in to the cap 42m.
55% - revenues
75% qualifying offers
Age 30 Unrestricted
The meeting is tomorrow without Goodenow and Bettman. As far as I can understand this is a worse proposal than the one the NHLPA rejected last week. Guess we can still hope.
6years
There is still a cap, but it is not set in stone
4 years players can re-open
There will be healthcare and insurance, but it will fit in to the cap 42m.
55% - revenues
75% qualifying offers
Age 30 Unrestricted
The meeting is tomorrow without Goodenow and Bettman. As far as I can understand this is a worse proposal than the one the NHLPA rejected last week. Guess we can still hope.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2005 09:19PM by calgARI '07.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:23PM
It comes down to this: can the players hope to get a better deal by holding out? If most of the teams are losing money by operating, doesn't that mean they cannot, by definition, be waited out? And if that's true, doesn't that mean either today, ten months, or ten years from now, the players will eventually have to take whatever the owners offer?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2005 11:24PM by Greg Berge.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:51PM
The players are collectively in fantasy land. This is by far the best deal they will be able to get. The longer they wait, the less power they have.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: CUlater 89 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 12:14AM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
The players are collectively in fantasy land. This is by far the best deal they will be able to get. The longer they wait, the less power they have.[/q]
With more and more players signing contracts in Europe and with other US leagues, I don't really see them losing power as time goes by. Many of them will have a source of revenue while the owners do not. Even if the owners bring in replacement players, are fans going to go to the games? Are the media obligated to pay full freight in that situation?
This may be the best deal the players can get, but only if you assume they are going to agree at some point to a salary cap. That's not necessarily the case.
The players are collectively in fantasy land. This is by far the best deal they will be able to get. The longer they wait, the less power they have.[/q]
With more and more players signing contracts in Europe and with other US leagues, I don't really see them losing power as time goes by. Many of them will have a source of revenue while the owners do not. Even if the owners bring in replacement players, are fans going to go to the games? Are the media obligated to pay full freight in that situation?
This may be the best deal the players can get, but only if you assume they are going to agree at some point to a salary cap. That's not necessarily the case.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 02, 2005 12:19AM
The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now? If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different. Some teams are probably losing less money. The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 02, 2005 12:22AM
The owners don't have any source of revenue? Well unless you factor in there many other business interests that already bring them far more money than their hockey teams do. Also, the owners that own their arenas are still making money, moreso than they were when there was a league. The owners do not care if there is hockey, at least they care a whole lot less than the players. The players are the ones that dreamed their whole lives of playing in the NHL and are now not. The owners care about making money which they weren't doing when the NHL was playing. Most of the players in Europe are making peanuts compared to what they are making in the NHL with the exception of hte players in the Russian Super League. The half of NHL players not playing in Europe are making crumbs compared to before on the PA lockout fund.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 02, 2005 12:23AM
[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now? If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different. Some teams are probably losing less money. The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.[/q]
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.
The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now? If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different. Some teams are probably losing less money. The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.[/q]
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: February 02, 2005 08:34AM
The owners really have fun and fold one team every month until the players capitulated. 
In that instance, I'd root for the players to hold out for at least a year. 
In that instance, I'd root for the players to hold out for at least a year.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: February 02, 2005 09:54AM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.[/q]
And if you buy that, I've got a bridge to sell...
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.[/q]
And if you buy that, I've got a bridge to sell...
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Harrier (209.150.239.---)
Date: February 02, 2005 10:01AM
Come on - this is a spohisticated and diverse group of owners, who do not owe their large fortunes to Hockey. They will ask for the same thing again and again until they get it (like most of the fabulously wealthy). Those players playing in other leagues are taking a larger pay cut than playing under ANY of the NHL proposed systems with a cap. Hmmm-> Add to that the fact that owners do not need popular support that players do for additional revenue (endorsements etc.). I think the owners offers are likely to continue to get worse for the players, not better.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 10:22AM
[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now? If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different. Some teams are probably losing less money. The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.[/q]
Not only can they not sell the team, but the team is losing value. The longer the lockout continues, the more fans will be alienated, so the less potential the team has to make money in the future, and the less they'd be able to sell the franchise for even once they start playing.
I've never cried for an owner who is losing a couple million a year while the market value (even if it IS based on the bigger fool theory) of the team climbs by 10s of millions per year. They've now given up these large capital gains in order not to lose cash - it seems penny wise and pound foolish to me. The owners want to have their cake and eat it, too - dividends AND growth from owning the same stock. Greed. Greed. Greed.
The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now? If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different. Some teams are probably losing less money. The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.[/q]
Not only can they not sell the team, but the team is losing value. The longer the lockout continues, the more fans will be alienated, so the less potential the team has to make money in the future, and the less they'd be able to sell the franchise for even once they start playing.
I've never cried for an owner who is losing a couple million a year while the market value (even if it IS based on the bigger fool theory) of the team climbs by 10s of millions per year. They've now given up these large capital gains in order not to lose cash - it seems penny wise and pound foolish to me. The owners want to have their cake and eat it, too - dividends AND growth from owning the same stock. Greed. Greed. Greed.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 02, 2005 10:33AM
It would be awesome to see a merger of capitalism and socialism as the NHL folds and the players form NHL2. They own it, they control it, they pay themselves. They decide if every player is a free agent on Day One or never. They decide how much to fund the farm teams. They decide how much retirement to pay themselves and how much tenure is required for how much money. They decide if they cap their salaries. They decide if the season should be longer (more games, more money) or shorter (longer careers).
It wasn't Dick Allen but it was somebody like him said, of soaring baseball player salaries, "The owners screwed the players for 100 years. By my count, we've got 95 years left and then it's even."
It wasn't Dick Allen but it was somebody like him said, of soaring baseball player salaries, "The owners screwed the players for 100 years. By my count, we've got 95 years left and then it's even."
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: CUlater 89 (64.244.223.---)
Date: February 02, 2005 10:37AM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
The owners don't have any source of revenue? Well unless you factor in there many other business interests that already bring them far more money than their hockey teams do. Also, the owners that own their arenas are still making money, moreso than they were when there was a league. The owners do not care if there is hockey, at least they care a whole lot less than the players. The players are the ones that dreamed their whole lives of playing in the NHL and are now not. The owners care about making money which they weren't doing when the NHL was playing. Most of the players in Europe are making peanuts compared to what they are making in the NHL with the exception of hte players in the Russian Super League. The half of NHL players not playing in Europe are making crumbs compared to before on the PA lockout fund.[/q]
Most owners hold the team in company separate from their other business interests. The entity that holds the team has minimal revenues, insufficient to cover many of the costs, even without player salaries being paid (hence the reason so many teams are laying of administrative employees and cutting the salaries of coaches etc.). Many of those entities have debt that must be serviced; without revenues from the playing of games, owners will need to come out of pocket to cover principal and interest, else face losing their teams to the banks.
The arena companies, whether owned by the team owners or otherwise, are not better off -- the cost of putting on a hockey game is far outweighed by the revenues associated with it, not to mention that with many arenas now being dark on most scheduled game nights, in-arena advertisers and luxury box holders are entitled to refunds or credits for the missed games.
The owners don't have any source of revenue? Well unless you factor in there many other business interests that already bring them far more money than their hockey teams do. Also, the owners that own their arenas are still making money, moreso than they were when there was a league. The owners do not care if there is hockey, at least they care a whole lot less than the players. The players are the ones that dreamed their whole lives of playing in the NHL and are now not. The owners care about making money which they weren't doing when the NHL was playing. Most of the players in Europe are making peanuts compared to what they are making in the NHL with the exception of hte players in the Russian Super League. The half of NHL players not playing in Europe are making crumbs compared to before on the PA lockout fund.[/q]
Most owners hold the team in company separate from their other business interests. The entity that holds the team has minimal revenues, insufficient to cover many of the costs, even without player salaries being paid (hence the reason so many teams are laying of administrative employees and cutting the salaries of coaches etc.). Many of those entities have debt that must be serviced; without revenues from the playing of games, owners will need to come out of pocket to cover principal and interest, else face losing their teams to the banks.
The arena companies, whether owned by the team owners or otherwise, are not better off -- the cost of putting on a hockey game is far outweighed by the revenues associated with it, not to mention that with many arenas now being dark on most scheduled game nights, in-arena advertisers and luxury box holders are entitled to refunds or credits for the missed games.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: February 02, 2005 10:55AM
[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:
calgARI '07 Wrote:
The owners don't have any source of revenue? Well unless you factor in there many other business interests that already bring them far more money than their hockey teams do. Also, the owners that own their arenas are still making money, moreso than they were when there was a league. The owners do not care if there is hockey, at least they care a whole lot less than the players. The players are the ones that dreamed their whole lives of playing in the NHL and are now not. The owners care about making money which they weren't doing when the NHL was playing. Most of the players in Europe are making peanuts compared to what they are making in the NHL with the exception of hte players in the Russian Super League. The half of NHL players not playing in Europe are making crumbs compared to before on the PA lockout fund.[/Q]
Most owners hold the team in company separate from their other business interests. The entity that holds the team has minimal revenues, insufficient to cover many of the costs, even without player salaries being paid (hence the reason so many teams are laying of administrative employees and cutting the salaries of coaches etc.). Many of those entities have debt that must be serviced; without revenues from the playing of games, owners will need to come out of pocket to cover principal and interest, else face losing their teams to the banks.
The arena companies, whether owned by the team owners or otherwise, are not better off -- the cost of putting on a hockey game is far outweighed by the revenues associated with it, not to mention that with many arenas now being dark on most scheduled game nights, in-arena advertisers and luxury box holders are entitled to refunds or credits for the missed games.[/q]
Fine, but what do the players have to fall back on? I think what Ari is saying (and what I also think) is that the players are being foolish for thinking that they can maintain the salaries they have now anywhere, while only the NHL actually gives them that opportunity.
If an owner had to fold a team, he would be fine because of his several other business ventures. For example, Tom Golisano (owner of the Sabres) owns Paychex, which makes billions of dollars a year. A hockey team worth less than 100 million would not be a big loss to him. It is just like losing an expensive toy. If a player doesn't have a place to play, he doesn't make anything.
The owners can wait forever for the NHL to return. When it comes back, it will be back under terms where they can make (more?) money. They know that the players will eventually have to cave in, and it's only a matter of time until they do.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Nate 04 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 10:58AM
Maybe hockey players will see that they may not be able to make the millions they had anticipated and more will come to college to get a degree. Thus the overall quality and skill of the college hockey program will increase. If nothing else, it'll probably deter players from leaving college early.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 02, 2005 11:10AM
>>> Tom Golisano (owner of the Sabres) owns Paychex, which makes billions of dollars a year.
Paychex processes billions. Earnings are a couple zeros to the left. Golisano's net worth is pegged by Forbes at $1.1 billion. So whether the Sabres make or lose money, Family Golisano will not be filling out financial aid forms for college, and since the Sabres are separate from Paychex, Golisano can cry "poor" and be accurate in the accounting sense.
I think the reason you buy a sports team, once you've already made a bunch of money, is the same reason (metaphorically) John Hinckley took a shot at President Reagan: To impress Jodie Foster.
Paychex processes billions. Earnings are a couple zeros to the left. Golisano's net worth is pegged by Forbes at $1.1 billion. So whether the Sabres make or lose money, Family Golisano will not be filling out financial aid forms for college, and since the Sabres are separate from Paychex, Golisano can cry "poor" and be accurate in the accounting sense.
I think the reason you buy a sports team, once you've already made a bunch of money, is the same reason (metaphorically) John Hinckley took a shot at President Reagan: To impress Jodie Foster.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 12:16PM
If the owners continue to make offers from here on out they won't get worse (from the players standpoint). They may not get substantially better, but there will be at least cosmetic improvements. The reason? The owners strategy has been to try to either get an unlikely deal that is favorable to management or wait it out until next year, declare an impasse and then impose new work rules unilaterally. They have a legal right to do this as long as they "bargain in good faith". Obviously a court gets to decide in the long run what that means. But offering less and less in eahc succeeding deal would probably not qualify.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: CUlater 89 (64.244.223.---)
Date: February 02, 2005 01:15PM
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
Fine, but what do the players have to fall back on? I think what Ari is saying (and what I also think) is that the players are being foolish for thinking that they can maintain the salaries they have now anywhere, while only the NHL actually gives them that opportunity.
If an owner had to fold a team, he would be fine because of his several other business ventures. For example, Tom Golisano (owner of the Sabres) owns Paychex, which makes billions of dollars a year. A hockey team worth less than 100 million would not be a big loss to him. It is just like losing an expensive toy. If a player doesn't have a place to play, he doesn't make anything.
The owners can wait forever for the NHL to return. When it comes back, it will be back under terms where they can make (more?) money. They know that the players will eventually have to cave in, and it's only a matter of time until they do.[/q]
It may be true that some or all owners can wait forever, but my point is that there is a cost in real dollars to them doing so. It's not only the players who are harmed by a long lockout.
In any case, that argument could be applied to any of the sports leagues -- the owners have more money and so can wait longer and the players have minimal options for earning money during a work stoppage and so can't wait as long. But obviously the owners don't "win" every CBA renegotiation.
Fine, but what do the players have to fall back on? I think what Ari is saying (and what I also think) is that the players are being foolish for thinking that they can maintain the salaries they have now anywhere, while only the NHL actually gives them that opportunity.
If an owner had to fold a team, he would be fine because of his several other business ventures. For example, Tom Golisano (owner of the Sabres) owns Paychex, which makes billions of dollars a year. A hockey team worth less than 100 million would not be a big loss to him. It is just like losing an expensive toy. If a player doesn't have a place to play, he doesn't make anything.
The owners can wait forever for the NHL to return. When it comes back, it will be back under terms where they can make (more?) money. They know that the players will eventually have to cave in, and it's only a matter of time until they do.[/q]
It may be true that some or all owners can wait forever, but my point is that there is a cost in real dollars to them doing so. It's not only the players who are harmed by a long lockout.
In any case, that argument could be applied to any of the sports leagues -- the owners have more money and so can wait longer and the players have minimal options for earning money during a work stoppage and so can't wait as long. But obviously the owners don't "win" every CBA renegotiation.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 01:22PM
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
calgARI '07 Wrote:
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.[/Q]
And if you buy that, I've got a bridge to sell...[/q]
Not only that, but when the owners opened up their books a few years ago, didn't an independent auditor find an average of about $10 million of undisclosed revenue for each team (okay, maybe the auditor wasn't independent)? If you think the owners aren't cooking their books somewhat to make it look worse than it is, then you may want to invest in Age's bridge.
I've never seen anyone come into negotiations with less of an idea of what the word negotiate means. The offer you quoted sounds to me pretty much exactly the same as everything else they've offered - doing the same thing multiple times + expecting different results = insanity and stupidity'
The players came out with a breakthrough offfer or 24% salary cuts, the owners? changed their position 0.8% Come on.
Btw, even if you buy that bull about half of the teams losing less money not playing, you hae to admit that that number changes significantly if you cut 24% of the salary off the top. Most teams by far, with a 24% salary cut, would be doing better playing. So that excuse is completely out the window. You cut salaries 24% to put them in a better position now, and put a strong luxury tax, tied to average league revenue (not per team, that's total bullshit), and the NHL is fine and the owners know it. This isn't about protecting themselves, this is about squeezing everything possible.
The owners get stronger? I think not. There's a reason the owners haven't announced an 'drop dead' date, you know. Because when that day comes, the owners have to return the millions they've been holding in season ticket money and collecting interest on. Also, since they're not competing, the player would be free to hold their own games and tournaments (or so I've read). Plus, with the WHA starting up, players can move over there. The longer is goes, the more is hurts the NHL, and the more other options the players have.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: February 02, 2005 01:35PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
CowbellGuy Wrote:
calgARI '07 Wrote:
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.[/Q]
And if you buy that, I've got a bridge to sell...[/Q]
Plus, with the WHA starting up, players can move over there. The longer is goes, the more is hurts the NHL, and the more other options the players have.[/q]
Have you actually been following the history of the WHA? It dissolved in 2004, and a new group of investors is trying to revive it. [www.worldhockeyassociation.net]
Hardly seems like a league on the edge of breaking into the mainstream.
IIRC, there is a cap of $15 million per team plus a franchise player that doesn't count against the cap. That's $30 million less per team than the recent NHL proposal, which also includes the franchise option. There is no way that NHL players would be able to start a new league that would draw enough revenue to justify much more than a $15 million cap. What the NHL knows is that the 27% salary decrease the players have offered is a pittance compared with the 66% decrease they would see in the WHA. The players really don't have much leverage in this situation. Once the NHLPA's coffers run out and they can't financially support their members any longer, the NHL will get what they want.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.library.cornell.edu)
Date: February 02, 2005 02:20PM
There will be no WHA. That project is barely alive.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.library.cornell.edu)
Date: February 02, 2005 02:22PM
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.library.cornell.edu)
Date: February 02, 2005 02:28PM
And some more telling information about NHL players. More specifically a UHLer commenting on Chelios, Draper, and Hatcher going to the UHL and stealing jobs.
[www.tsn.ca]
[www.tsn.ca]
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 02:42PM
[q]The offer you quoted sounds to me pretty much exactly the same as everything else they've offered - doing the same thing multiple times + expecting different results = insanity and stupidity' [/q]It's not insane behavior at all because the owners don't really expect to get different results. They expect to get rejected repeatedly until either 1) the players financial situation and unity degrades enough that they're willing to take the offer or 2) they can unilaterally impose new work rules. One can certainly argue about the owners strategy and tactics, but their actions are certainly not insane. Stupid maybe.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: RichH (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 03:08PM
Interesting. Motor City visits Elmira on March 27 and April 10.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 03:46PM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
There will be no WHA. That project is barely alive.[/q]
It was barely alive. In fact the first season obviously never happened. But they have a tournament coming up this sprint with a national tv contract or some sort (or perhaps regional networks).
The players wouldn't go to the WHA to get more money - they'd go there for the same reason they're going to Europe and the minors. As a way to make income and enjoy hockey while they wait out the NHL. Its a temp job and it sure as hell beats 'would you like fries with that'. It has nothing to do with the WHA becoming a national powerhouse, but it has everything to do with the NHLPA being under virtually no pressure to settle, because their players will find jobs, make some money and enjoy hockey. This opinion that they'll run out of money soon - I just don't understand why. Many of them are already playing in Europe, helping out their former college teams, or gainfully employed in some hockey related way.
Meanwhile, no one seems to dispute the actual substance. You can't go into a negotiation with one and only one solution you're willing to consider. Now I don't know the legal specifics, but if an impasse is declared, I have a very hard time believing that multiple offers that have barely budged should qualify as 'in god faith'. Maybe it will, but it shouldn't.
There will be no WHA. That project is barely alive.[/q]
It was barely alive. In fact the first season obviously never happened. But they have a tournament coming up this sprint with a national tv contract or some sort (or perhaps regional networks).
The players wouldn't go to the WHA to get more money - they'd go there for the same reason they're going to Europe and the minors. As a way to make income and enjoy hockey while they wait out the NHL. Its a temp job and it sure as hell beats 'would you like fries with that'. It has nothing to do with the WHA becoming a national powerhouse, but it has everything to do with the NHLPA being under virtually no pressure to settle, because their players will find jobs, make some money and enjoy hockey. This opinion that they'll run out of money soon - I just don't understand why. Many of them are already playing in Europe, helping out their former college teams, or gainfully employed in some hockey related way.
Meanwhile, no one seems to dispute the actual substance. You can't go into a negotiation with one and only one solution you're willing to consider. Now I don't know the legal specifics, but if an impasse is declared, I have a very hard time believing that multiple offers that have barely budged should qualify as 'in god faith'. Maybe it will, but it shouldn't.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Pete Godenschwager (---.chem.cornell.edu)
Date: February 03, 2005 05:02PM
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.music.cornell.edu)
Date: February 03, 2005 05:33PM
[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:
Looks like the official cancelation will be today or tomorrow:
[/q]
Looks like the official cancelation will be today or tomorrow:
[/q]
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: pfibiger (---.dfafunds.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 05:39PM
well, i guess Cornell's got a volunteer assistant coach for the rest of the season. Maybe the lacrosse team needs a volunteer as well? 
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.yw.yu.edu)
Date: February 03, 2005 06:36PM
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
Pete Godenschwager Wrote:
Looks like the official cancelation will be today or tomorrow:
[/Q]
[/q]
You said it, Grant.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 03, 2005 07:35PM
sad day for sports if the NHL cancels the season. This will really stink and I believe this may be the end of a major hockey sport in north america 
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 07:59PM
[Q]jy3 Wrote:
sad day for sports if the NHL cancels the season. This will really stink and I believe this may be the end of a major hockey sport in north america[/q]
Dunno. The Devils just announced they're building a new 18,000-seat arena.
sad day for sports if the NHL cancels the season. This will really stink and I believe this may be the end of a major hockey sport in north america[/q]
Dunno. The Devils just announced they're building a new 18,000-seat arena.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: February 03, 2005 08:03PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
jy3 Wrote:
sad day for sports if the NHL cancels the season. This will really stink and I believe this may be the end of a major hockey sport in north america[/Q]
Dunno. The Devils just announced they're building a new 18,000-seat arena.[/q]
Don't they share that with the Nets?
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 08:13PM
[q]Don't [the Devils] share [their new arena] with the Nets? [/q]Last I heard the Nets were trying to move to Brooklyn. The most recent thing I could quickly Google on this was dated a year ago so I don't know if the plan fell through or nit.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: February 03, 2005 08:40PM
Can they be renamed the "Warriors"?
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 03, 2005 08:49PM
The Nets' plan for Brooklyn is proceeding but it is still not a guanantee they're moving. The current arena is one of those charmless buildings in the middle of a parking lot in the middle of a swamp - correction, revitalizing nature refuge - that is still a darn sight better than the current Madison Square Garden that destroyed Pennsylvania Station.
There is lots of talk of putting a civic auditorium / sports arena in Newark near the train station (also called Penn Station). This is not as silly as it sounds. The Star-Ledger newspaper, headquartered a few blocks away, has taken this on (well, cheerleading for it) as its civic duty, having a decade ago pushed through a performing arts center. For anyone who attends Ranger games, once they're out of the playoffs, which is sadly as of the final game of the season, getting from there to a new Newark stadium would only be an additional 20 minutes.
A new civic center in Newark is going to do a lot more for that city than anything you build in Detroit, or any gimmick there like the 2011 Frozen Four in a domed stadium.
On the other hand, maybe people will decide if the teams want new auditoriums, that's what the owners' checkbooks are for.
There is lots of talk of putting a civic auditorium / sports arena in Newark near the train station (also called Penn Station). This is not as silly as it sounds. The Star-Ledger newspaper, headquartered a few blocks away, has taken this on (well, cheerleading for it) as its civic duty, having a decade ago pushed through a performing arts center. For anyone who attends Ranger games, once they're out of the playoffs, which is sadly as of the final game of the season, getting from there to a new Newark stadium would only be an additional 20 minutes.
A new civic center in Newark is going to do a lot more for that city than anything you build in Detroit, or any gimmick there like the 2011 Frozen Four in a domed stadium.
On the other hand, maybe people will decide if the teams want new auditoriums, that's what the owners' checkbooks are for.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 09:02PM
Hahahahaha!!! I could've sworn you just said that Byrne Arena (oh, sorry, Continental Airlines Arena) was better than MSG, but you couldn't have, because that's just plain ridiculous.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 09:03PM
"Waaa-riooooors.... Come out and play-eee-ayyyy..."
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 03, 2005 09:04PM
They are still meeting at 9:00. They started at 1:00. I think it has to be a good sign.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 09:06PM
Or the meeting could be going something like this:
"Will you agree to a salary cap?"
"No."
...
"How about now?"
"No."
"Now?"
"No."
...
"What about now?"
"No."
"N-"
"No."
"Will you agree to a salary cap?"
"No."
...
"How about now?"
"No."
"Now?"
"No."
...
"What about now?"
"No."
"N-"
"No."
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 03, 2005 09:13PM
Talks finished for the night. More to come.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 03, 2005 09:18PM
Now there are reports talks might not be finished and that they could talk well into the night.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 10:07PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
A new civic center in Newark is going to do a lot more for that city than anything you build in Detroit, or any gimmick there like the 2011 Frozen Four in a domed stadium.
On the other hand, maybe people will decide if the teams want new auditoriums, that's what the owners' checkbooks are for. [/q]
The plan supposedly is $210 million from Newark, $100 million from the Devils. To be ready for 2007-8 season. Maybe the lockout will end by then.
A new civic center in Newark is going to do a lot more for that city than anything you build in Detroit, or any gimmick there like the 2011 Frozen Four in a domed stadium.
On the other hand, maybe people will decide if the teams want new auditoriums, that's what the owners' checkbooks are for. [/q]
The plan supposedly is $210 million from Newark, $100 million from the Devils. To be ready for 2007-8 season. Maybe the lockout will end by then.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 03, 2005 11:05PM
They are finished for tonight. They will meet again tomorrow.
[www.tsn.ca]
[www.tsn.ca]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2005 11:05PM by calgARI '07.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 04, 2005 12:51AM
I really hope they question the infrastructure in Newark though. Those who have experience with the Turnpike, 280, GSP area know what I fear when I think of a 7 PM start time on a weekday night ::shudder::
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 04, 2005 07:44AM
There is a wee bit of a problem getting into the golden triangle (such as it is) of Newark's downtown via motorcar. By train and subway (PATH) it's a snap from New Jersey and from the island we bought for $24 worth of trinkets. I'm sure that if and when the arena is built, Newark will then come crying to the state and feds for highway improvements to Realize the Dream. And that will be on top of the $300 million or so.
For those Madison Square Garden chauvinists: the place looks old inside because it is. To watch a game, it's okay, but then so is any arena that doesn't have supporting pillars (aloha, Boston Garden). The corridors are tiny. This is the place where they forgot to put in a press box first time through. For some reason, the championship banners in the rafters appear old and dusty, as if none of them are more recent than say 10 years old.
Say whay you will about Byrne now Continental Arena, they just drove pilings deeper and deeper into the unused wetlands until they hit bedrock (or cinderblock and bone fragments). No historically wondrous buildings were razed to build something that itself will unlikely last much past 50 or 60 years.
For those Madison Square Garden chauvinists: the place looks old inside because it is. To watch a game, it's okay, but then so is any arena that doesn't have supporting pillars (aloha, Boston Garden). The corridors are tiny. This is the place where they forgot to put in a press box first time through. For some reason, the championship banners in the rafters appear old and dusty, as if none of them are more recent than say 10 years old.
Say whay you will about Byrne now Continental Arena, they just drove pilings deeper and deeper into the unused wetlands until they hit bedrock (or cinderblock and bone fragments). No historically wondrous buildings were razed to build something that itself will unlikely last much past 50 or 60 years.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: February 04, 2005 09:17AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
For those Madison Square Garden chauvinists: the place looks old inside because it is. To watch a game, it's okay, but then so is any arena that doesn't have supporting pillars (aloha, Boston Garden). The corridors are tiny. This is the place where they forgot to put in a press box first time through. For some reason, the championship banners in the rafters appear old and dusty, as if none of them are more recent than say 10 years old. [/q]
The "new" Garden is a dump. Ugly outside and in, with bad sight-lines. We were given pretty good tickets for a Rangers game--about 1/3 of the way up at center ice. It was better to watch the game on the big-screen TV over the ice than to follow the action directly. For this disaster someone decided to tear down Pennsylvania Station. Dante would have known exactly where to place him/them.
For those Madison Square Garden chauvinists: the place looks old inside because it is. To watch a game, it's okay, but then so is any arena that doesn't have supporting pillars (aloha, Boston Garden). The corridors are tiny. This is the place where they forgot to put in a press box first time through. For some reason, the championship banners in the rafters appear old and dusty, as if none of them are more recent than say 10 years old. [/q]
The "new" Garden is a dump. Ugly outside and in, with bad sight-lines. We were given pretty good tickets for a Rangers game--about 1/3 of the way up at center ice. It was better to watch the game on the big-screen TV over the ice than to follow the action directly. For this disaster someone decided to tear down Pennsylvania Station. Dante would have known exactly where to place him/them.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: February 04, 2005 10:25AM
Seating for hockey should never exceed 7k. The only remotely large building where it was fun to watch hockey from the cheap seats was the Gahden, and that was because the sides rose about twice as steep as Lynah, and you always felt like you were about to fall in.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: February 04, 2005 10:48AM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Seating for hockey should never exceed 7k. The only remotely large building where it was fun to watch hockey from the cheap seats was the Gahden, and that was because the sides rose about twice as steep as Lynah, and you always felt like you were about to fall in.[/q]
The overhang on mezzanine and balcony levels helped create that effect, too
Seating for hockey should never exceed 7k. The only remotely large building where it was fun to watch hockey from the cheap seats was the Gahden, and that was because the sides rose about twice as steep as Lynah, and you always felt like you were about to fall in.[/q]
The overhang on mezzanine and balcony levels helped create that effect, too
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 04, 2005 01:33PM
Passing on a rumor heard on the Fan 590 out of Toronto:
"The fan 590 out of toronto just reported that Tibeault and another
player rep have stated the players on their team would accept a salary
cap. Howard berger also reported Goodenow told the players he won't
leave the table now until he gets a deal. They also speculated on the
grumblings of 3rd/4th line players who want to vote because they want
to play. If any of that is true it'll be interesting as it'll pretty
much be the first time the union cracked and not the owners. they are
trying to run the source of the player rep quotes"
"The fan 590 out of toronto just reported that Tibeault and another
player rep have stated the players on their team would accept a salary
cap. Howard berger also reported Goodenow told the players he won't
leave the table now until he gets a deal. They also speculated on the
grumblings of 3rd/4th line players who want to vote because they want
to play. If any of that is true it'll be interesting as it'll pretty
much be the first time the union cracked and not the owners. they are
trying to run the source of the player rep quotes"
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 04, 2005 03:21PM
Today's meeting is finished. Talks ended "badly." Season over.
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 04, 2005 06:18PM
Sorry if it has been said before but on ESPN they said the last time the Stanley Cup was not awarded was 1919 due to the influenza outbreak. The reigning World Series Champion at the time was the Boston Red Sox. 
Re: New Final Proposal from NHL
Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 04, 2005 08:43PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
jy3 Wrote:
sad day for sports if the NHL cancels the season. This will really stink and I believe this may be the end of a major hockey sport in north america[/Q]
Dunno. The Devils just announced they're building a new 18,000-seat arena.[/q]
u just made a devils fan quite happy, though i live far....buffalo is far
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.