Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DuckNinja

Another Lockout?

Recommended Posts

One of the big issues if not the paramount concern, is spreading the wealth around the league. Helping out the less profitable franchises. If there is another lockout and a cancelled or shortened season, fans can point there fingers at clubs like Anaheim and Phoenix who need to be carried by the fiscally healthy teams. If the salary cap is dropped to what is currently the salary floor, everyone can thank the Ducks along with the other poor teams.

The government can bail out banks so why shouldn't the league bail out teams that can't compete in the realm of finances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big issues if not the paramount concern, is spreading the wealth around the league. Helping out the less profitable franchises. If there is another lockout and a cancelled or shortened season, fans can point there fingers at clubs like Anaheim and Phoenix who need to be carried by the fiscally healthy teams. If the salary cap is dropped to what is currently the salary floor, everyone can thank the Ducks along with the other poor teams.

The government can bail out banks so why shouldn't the league bail out teams that can't compete in the realm of finances?

So if fans of the top ten teams are resentful of the teams who qualify for financial help (like revenue sharing), why should we care? The Ducks don't qualify for revenue sharing (someone correct me if I'm wrong)... the teams that did were: Coyotes, Jets, Blues, Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Avalanche, Lightning, Sabres, Capitals, Oilers, and Wild. The Islanders (surprisingly), Stars, and Ducks did not because of the large market provision (2.5 million tv households).

As far as the possible cap rollback, I'm a fan of the Ducks, and if it makes for better parity so my team can compete then I'm all for it. Should I feel guilty over the lockout because teams with bottomless wallets have to curb their spending to keep the league competitive and stable? Isn't the overall stability and growth of the league what's best for the collective in the long run? I also don't get the government bailout comment, that looks to be there just to stir the pot a bit. Not really comparable IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe not lock out,but season might begin late,like late December

latest from Teemu

if the lock out comes Teemu might return to Jokerit and most likely retire after that

(the last part i added)

Teemu says it intreeges him greatly to return to Jokerit and he is tempted

oh here is some preview pictures from Teemu Selänne motion picture (movie)

1462279-max555x555.jpg

1462280-max555x555.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked to a friend who lives in Guelph, Ontario. He thinks, along with other buddies he's talked to, that the owners will not budge at anything the NHLPA offers, proposes etc, so they can get what they want. Basically he thinks we're unit for another full season lockout.

Just personal speculation, bar talk sort of thing.....sad thou...hope he's wrong....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if fans of the top ten teams are resentful of the teams who qualify for financial help (like revenue sharing), why should we care? The Ducks don't qualify for revenue sharing (someone correct me if I'm wrong)... the teams that did were: Coyotes, Jets, Blues, Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Avalanche, Lightning, Sabres, Capitals, Oilers, and Wild. The Islanders (surprisingly), Stars, and Ducks did not because of the large market provision (2.5 million tv households).

As far as the possible cap rollback, I'm a fan of the Ducks, and if it makes for better parity so my team can compete then I'm all for it. Should I feel guilty over the lockout because teams with bottomless wallets have to curb their spending to keep the league competitive and stable? Isn't the overall stability and growth of the league what's best for the collective in the long run? I also don't get the government bailout comment, that looks to be there just to stir the pot a bit. Not really comparable IMO.

I don't think it's so much about the revenue sharing, rather a salary leveling. When the Ducks won the cup, Burke had the team at the cap. One would hope winning a cup would bump the revenue of a franchise. Instead the club could not sustain the high salary. Samueli came out in 08 and stated the franchise had been running in double digit million dollar deficit and could not afford to spend to the cap. This has everything to do with what the new CBA is about. If the owners get their way the cap will be where the floor is now. It's not just the ducks having money problems, it's a whole mess of teams. But as a Duck fan or any fan of a struggling team I find it extremely hypocritical to chafe the situation. So I wish to bring the situation to light as I have already talked with other duck fans that don't realize "their" team is part of the problem.

And I think the bailout comment is valid, the governing agency is stepping in to remedy an ailing system rather then let the league balance itself out. The Players association was trying to put a system on the table that would give the league three years for the teams to level out. The pot only gets stirred if someone doesn't like a comment and feels the need to denounce that opinion based on personal ideals, I should that is not the case here. But if it is so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so much about the revenue sharing, rather a salary leveling. When the Ducks won the cup, Burke had the team at the cap. One would hope winning a cup would bump the revenue of a franchise. Instead the club could not sustain the high salary. Samueli came out in 08 and stated the franchise had been running in double digit million dollar deficit and could not afford to spend to the cap. This has everything to do with what the new CBA is about. If the owners get their way the cap will be where the floor is now. It's not just the ducks having money problems, it's a whole mess of teams. But as a Duck fan or any fan of a struggling team I find it extremely hypocritical to chafe the situation. So I wish to bring the situation to light as I have already talked with other duck fans that don't realize "their" team is part of the problem.

And I think the bailout comment is valid, the governing agency is stepping in to remedy an ailing system rather then let the league balance itself out. The Players association was trying to put a system on the table that would give the league three years for the teams to level out. The pot only gets stirred if someone doesn't like a comment and feels the need to denounce that opinion based on personal ideals, I should that is not the case here. But if it is so be it.

As far as stirring the pot, your post had an slight antagonistic tone to it, and making a comparison to the controversial government bailout looked like an attempt to evoke strong reactions. Sorry if I took that the wrong way. Anyhow, I don't think the government letting major banks collapse was the same situation as the umbrella of the NHL and all of it's franchises sharing revenue, rolling back salaries, or re-defining spending limits. That's similar to what many large entities have done during the last decade to try and maintain stability during bumpy economic times. Not really comparable in my book (REALLY not looking to debate politics, definitely not my intention or desire).

I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make. It seems that you're implying we should feel bad that our expansion franchise hasn't managed to capture more of the SoCal sports market, and we should hope that the league contracts at the cost of the Ducks franchise, so the big market teams are no longer burdened. If we're part of "the problem", then what would be the solution? If Bettman over-extended the league by putting too many unprofitable teams in non-traditional markets, then I don't think we're at the top of the list of troubled teams.

The spirit of the last CBA was to address these issues with the introduction of the salary cap. Obviously, it is currently flawed in the way that teams have found ways around it to use their financial advantages to gain higher ground over budget teams. I really don't see what is so terrible about reducing the HRR (which the players are ok with, no?), and rolling the cap back to a point where all 30 teams compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as stirring the pot, your post had an slight antagonistic tone to it, and making a comparison to the controversial government bailout looked like an attempt to evoke strong reactions. Sorry if I took that the wrong way. Anyhow, I don't think the government letting major banks collapse was the same situation as the umbrella of the NHL and all of it's franchises sharing revenue, rolling back salaries, or re-defining spending limits. That's similar to what many large entities have done during the last decade to try and maintain stability during bumpy economic times. Not really comparable in my book (REALLY not looking to debate politics, definitely not my intention or desire).

I dont remember if you were around then but Ken (Admin) banned politics and a couple other topics from the board. Idk if he has changed that but last I knew political threads/post would get deleted due to the heated nature that topic and others generally take.

So dont worry I someone wanted to you probably wouldnt see it or know about it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont remember if you were around then but Ken (Admin) banned politics and a couple other topics from the board. Idk if he has changed that but last I knew political threads/post would get deleted due to the heated nature that topic and others generally take.

So dont worry I someone wanted to you probably wouldnt see it or know about it :lol:

Hehe. Seriously, if we can debate a Bobby Ryan comment for 88 heated pages full of attacks and insults, imagine if we discussed political issues that actually matter in the real world. Now THAT would be ugly! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as stirring the pot, your post had an slight antagonistic tone to it, and making a comparison to the controversial government bailout looked like an attempt to evoke strong reactions. Sorry if I took that the wrong way. Anyhow, I don't think the government letting major banks collapse was the same situation as the umbrella of the NHL and all of it's franchises sharing revenue, rolling back salaries, or re-defining spending limits. That's similar to what many large entities have done during the last decade to try and maintain stability during bumpy economic times. Not really comparable in my book (REALLY not looking to debate politics, definitely not my intention or desire).

I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make. It seems that you're implying we should feel bad that our expansion franchise hasn't managed to capture more of the SoCal sports market, and we should hope that the league contracts at the cost of the Ducks franchise, so the big market teams are no longer burdened. If we're part of "the problem", then what would be the solution? If Bettman over-extended the league by putting too many unprofitable teams in non-traditional markets, then I don't think we're at the top of the list of troubled teams.

The spirit of the last CBA was to address these issues with the introduction of the salary cap. Obviously, it is currently flawed in the way that teams have found ways around it to use their financial advantages to gain higher ground over budget teams. I really don't see what is so terrible about reducing the HRR (which the players are ok with, no?), and rolling the cap back to a point where all 30 teams compete.

Fair enough, politics are a drag anyhow. I retract my bailout comparison. If you want to feel bad (but I'm pretty sure you don't) about the Ducks being baggage on the league then have at it. My point is not to inflict shame rather to address the fact that the Ducks are one of the franchises causing a problem in the fiscal matters of the league. If there was to be a lock out, I would think fans of stable teams would have just cause to hold animosity towards the Ducks and the rest of the depressed teams. So when fans of these teams start moaning about a lock out, they should keep in mind it's their team that is a big part of the problem. Hence the statement and denunciation of being a hypocrite. Mind you that I have experienced this from personal conversations not just this or other boards.

Just a little bit of light is all I'm call for.

BTW If I was going to continue to be political I might draw in the comparison of a communist system, but I wont do that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, politics are a drag anyhow. I retract my bailout comparison. If you want to feel bad (but I'm pretty sure you don't) about the Ducks being baggage on the league then have at it. My point is not to inflict shame rather to address the fact that the Ducks are one of the franchises causing a problem in the fiscal matters of the league. If there was to be a lock out, I would think fans of stable teams would have just cause to hold animosity towards the Ducks and the rest of the depressed teams. So when fans of these teams start moaning about a lock out, they should keep in mind it's their team that is a big part of the problem. Hence the statement and denunciation of being a hypocrite. Mind you that I have experienced this from personal conversations not just this or other boards.

Just a little bit of light is all I'm call for.

BTW If I was going to continue to be political I might draw in the comparison of a communist system, but I wont do that ;)

Though I'm sure what you're saying is not exactly palatable to most Ducks fans, I would agree somewhat with the point you're making. We should be more informed when complaining about the lockout, because there are two sides to the coin. As a fan of a budget team, I would blame the top earning clubs for being greedy and trying to circumvent the cap. But being honest, the flip side is that the budget teams aren't making enough revenue to do anything but sit at the cap floor and hope for help (like revenue sharing). We could point fingers but so could they. Fair enough.

I just think that's being a bit short-sighted (not by you HeWho, just in general) by not looking at the bigger picture. By that logic it really could become a debate over the value of the NHL carrying 30 teams vs. rolling back to only the teams that are profitable. If spending closer to the current cap than the floor is the sign of a team not part of the problem, then I only see a dozen teams or so currently spending closer to the ceiling than the floor (based on a rough median of ~62M if the cap floor is ~$55M or so, and the ceiling is ~$70M). And based on last season, I coincidentally only see a dozen teams that actually show profit (according to Forbes). That makes for a much larger number of teams that are "part of the problem". I know that's a crude way to assess things, but based on the criteria I've seen thrown around, all that seems to matter is how close a team spends to the cap and whether they are profitable each year.

I won't pretend to be knowledgeable when it comes to this stuff, but I just think the "problem" is tougher to define than just pointing at the teams not spending to the cap or making money every year and calling them dead weight. The only solution would be to cut the NHL in half, and only include the profitable teams. I just don't think that's realistic, or even a goal most owners would be favorable of IMO. If the majority agree that it's better to grow the sport by expanding the league, then it's inevitable that there will need to be a compromise between the top earning teams and the struggling teams. To me that is what's going on now. I could agree that there might be merit in contracting the league a little, and/or moving teams to eliminate the most struggling lost causes, but I don't see us in that category (yet). That's why I don't fully agree that we are part of the problem right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I'm sure what you're saying is not exactly palatable to most Ducks fans, I would agree somewhat with the point you're making. We should be more informed when complaining about the lockout, because there are two sides to the coin. As a fan of a budget team, I would blame the top earning clubs for being greedy and trying to circumvent the cap. But being honest, the flip side is that the budget teams aren't making enough revenue to do anything but sit at the cap floor and hope for help (like revenue sharing). We could point fingers but so could they. Fair enough.

I just think that's being a bit short-sighted (not by you HeWho, just in general) by not looking at the bigger picture. By that logic it really could become a debate over the value of the NHL carrying 30 teams vs. rolling back to only the teams that are profitable. If spending closer to the current cap than the floor is the sign of a team not part of the problem, then I only see a dozen teams or so currently spending closer to the ceiling than the floor (based on a rough median of ~62M if the cap floor is ~$55M or so, and the ceiling is ~$70M). And based on last season, I coincidentally only see a dozen teams that actually show profit (according to Forbes). That makes for a much larger number of teams that are "part of the problem". I know that's a crude way to assess things, but based on the criteria I've seen thrown around, all that seems to matter is how close a team spends to the cap and whether they are profitable each year.

I won't pretend to be knowledgeable when it comes to this stuff, but I just think the "problem" is tougher to define than just pointing at the teams not spending to the cap or making money every year and calling them dead weight. The only solution would be to cut the NHL in half, and only include the profitable teams. I just don't think that's realistic, or even a goal most owners would be favorable of IMO. If the majority agree that it's better to grow the sport by expanding the league, then it's inevitable that there will need to be a compromise between the top earning teams and the struggling teams. To me that is what's going on now. I could agree that there might be merit in contracting the league a little, and/or moving teams to eliminate the most struggling lost causes, but I don't see us in that category (yet). That's why I don't fully agree that we are part of the problem right now.

I think you nailed it on the head, if the finger shall be pointed let it be pointed at those that have promoted expansion to the point that the league is in danger of self imploding. personally I wouldn't mind a smaller league. The teams would have a higher concentration of top talent and we would likely see even better hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a lockout, at least I have my Ducks Stanley Cup DVD to watch. 82 times if necessary, ha ha.

I have the 12-disc DVD set where it goes from Game 1 of the WCF against Detroit to Game 5 against Ottowa. I think I'm going to have to watch those DVDs myself.

On a side note does anyone know how I can get the entire 2006-2007 regular season plus the first two rounds of the playoffs on DVD or any other format?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying the Ducks are different than all the other teams doing the same thing, but it's pretty pathetic that they went ahead and put tickets for the season onsale this morning.

And I don't buy for a second, that management or ownership actually believe the season will realistically begin as scheduled. There is the increasing likelihood every single day that goes by, that there is going to be a Lockout, in exactly 21 days.

So now all these teams, can collect money from fans, even though the season may not start until December, and the schedule will probably have to be refigured, as the NBA did this season following their dispute. That's ok, because the owners really need to earn the interest on that ticket money, along with the guaranteed amount they're receiving from NBC, even if the season gets cancelled. Otherwise they might have more incentive to compromise and work things out.

The owners WANT the lockout to happen, which means it is going to happen. They're barely even talking to each other, and they only need to drag their feet a couple more weeks. They also know the players aren't just going to cave and accept the owners' proposal as it stands.

I expect the rhetoric and nasty comments from both sides to really heat up next week. By the end of Labor Day weekend, with 10 days left to reach agreement, the atmosphere will be poisoned enough, and both sides will be in fighting mode, that people will start to realize the start of the season is in Extreme jeopardy.

Edit to add: I don't believe ALL the owners are in favor of a lockout, but the most powerful ones, along with Buttman, are fully onboard, and they're the ones running the show unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can take the question mark off of the title of this thread. It's essentially inevitable there will be a lockout now and the only REAL question is: for how long? It's kind-of pathetic that the NHL and NHLPA are meeting for about 2 hours a week just to talk about IF they're ready to start talking about the issues. It's pathetic. Put on your big-boy pants and get a deal in place.

Fehr and Bettman are both the worst things that could've happened to hockey.. Are either of them even fans of the game or just fans of making money? (The same question could be asked of a lot of the players.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can take the question mark off of the title of this thread. It's essentially inevitable there will be a lockout now and the only REAL question is: for how long? It's kind-of pathetic that the NHL and NHLPA are meeting for about 2 hours a week just to talk about IF they're ready to start talking about the issues. It's pathetic. Put on your big-boy pants and get a deal in place.

Fehr and Bettman are both the worst things that could've happened to hockey.. Are either of them even fans of the game or just fans of making money? (The same question could be asked of a lot of the players.)

Weird but Fehr is the best thing to happen to the PA and Bettman is the best thing to happen for the owners. Neither person is the right fit for the league and the direction that it should head into. I can understand why the owners are so hard line about reducing revenue sharing to players, contract limits, and extending RFA years. I can also understand why the PA hired Fehr because they don't want to look like pushovers and right now things haven't gotten ugly but they could potentially hit that nasty level when there is plenty of name calling. Fehr is riding some positive wind drafts because every person saw the league's proposal as a low-ball offer. Who knows when opinion will turn against the PA though. One thing I anticipate is that things will get ugly the closer we get to doomsday (Sept 15).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea, rather than write your congressman, how about we write our owners. I'm certain if the owners get massive amounts of letters/email from fans saying they'll never come back after a lockout it might be enough incentive for them to avoid one. After all, with no fans there's no money to debate over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as the lockout goes I put the blame square on the owners shoulders. Donald Fehr for the NHLPA has come out and said that they are willing to play under the existing contract and keep negotiating. If the owners cared about the fans, there would be no lockout.

in the US the NHL is the red-head step child of all professional sports and can not afford a lockout because of a bunch of greedy billionaires.

as much as I like hockey I can not continue to support an organization that clearly dosn't give one rats a$$ about it's fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as the lockout goes I put the blame square on the owners shoulders. Donald Fehr for the NHLPA has come out and said that they are willing to play under the existing contract and keep negotiating. If the owners cared about the fans, there would be no lockout.

in the US the NHL is the red-head step child of all professional sports and can not afford a lockout because of a bunch of greedy billionaires.

as much as I like hockey I can not continue to support an organization that clearly dosn't give one rats a$$ about it's fans.

I don't think it's so simple, or just a matter of greed. Some owners may be billionaires, but there has to be a limit to what losses they are willing to absorb year after year. Many teams are operating in the red every year, and can't be expected to continually spend more and more beyond their means just to meet the growing cap floor requirements. We're at a point where that formula has reached it's limit, and now some further compromises must be made. If a team like Anaheim is already losing $8M + per year, and doesn't qualify for revenue sharing, it makes no sense to continue raising the cap, forcing us to spend even further into the red just to give the players a pay raise. The league, and all parties involved, will have to find a safe middle ground that is fair to all the owners as a whole, and the players will need to be paid accordingly.

I might be in the minority, but the more I learn about things the less I blame the owners. I agree the owners need to appreciate the fans that do contribute to their revenue, but I also think we as fans need to appreciate that we have a billionaire owner willing to lose money every year just so we can have a franchise. With the Sac Kings NBA team falling through, I wonder how many more years Samueli is even going to ride this thing out. Now we expect him to be OK with raising the cap and spending more into the red just to avoid a lockout. These guys know the consequences of losing another year of hockey, I doubt any of them are going into this casually, as they are the ones with the most to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 12-disc DVD set where it goes from Game 1 of the WCF against Detroit to Game 5 against Ottowa. I think I'm going to have to watch those DVDs myself.

On a side note does anyone know how I can get the entire 2006-2007 regular season plus the first two rounds of the playoffs on DVD or any other format?

WHAT? You need a DVD? You can't replay those in your head alone? PFFT.

In reply to your side note, I'm not sure how far back NHL VAULT really goes, but in theory, it should be available. Right now they only go back to 2007-08 season, however that season seems to have just been added.

http://gamecenter.nhl.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as the lockout goes I put the blame square on the owners shoulders. Donald Fehr for the NHLPA has come out and said that they are willing to play under the existing contract and keep negotiating. If the owners cared about the fans, there would be no lockout.

in the US the NHL is the red-head step child of all professional sports and can not afford a lockout because of a bunch of greedy billionaires.

as much as I like hockey I can not continue to support an organization that clearly dosn't give one rats a$$ about it's fans.

Of course the players would play the season under the current deal - that would mean the Cap is at $70M and all those ridiculous contracts still count. If the owners agreed to playing the season under the current deal there would be no incentive for the players to negotiate. Then we are right back in the same place this time next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the rest of you but this summer without our Ducks hockey has been terrible for me. :( The thought of another lockout has me so depressed & angry that this situation has even been considered. :angry: The owners didn't lose enough money the last time? I would think that both sides would do whatever is necessary to keep that from happening again. It has taken a long time to regain the audience hockey had before. We are enjoying a new generation of hockey lovers and now another lockout is being considered? I am just disgusted with this whole situation. (Especially if this is Teemu's last year!)

My hockey withdrawal is already reaching a limit...a lockout will be unbearable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the rest of you but this summer without our Ducks hockey has been terrible for me. :( The thought of another lockout has me so depressed & angry that this situation has even been considered. :angry: The owners didn't lose enough money the last time? I would think that both sides would do whatever is necessary to keep that from happening again. It has taken a long time to regain the audience hockey had before. We are enjoying a new generation of hockey lovers and now another lockout is being considered? I am just disgusted with this whole situation. (Especially if this is Teemu's last year!)

My hockey withdrawal is already reaching a limit...a lockout will be unbearable.

It ain't the NHL but it'll get you through some rough patches.

http://www.thefirstrow.eu/sport/ice-hockey.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT? You need a DVD? You can't replay those in your head alone? PFFT.

In reply to your side note, I'm not sure how far back NHL VAULT really goes, but in theory, it should be available. Right now they only go back to 2007-08 season, however that season seems to have just been added.

http://gamecenter.nhl.com

Ha! I do need a dvd because I'm organizing a get together with my friends and they want to watch entire seasons plus playoffs if there is a lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL submitted another proposal. An interesting tidbit per Michael Grange:

"Some details on #NHL proposal; told league to phase in new HRR split: 52-48 (players) in yr 1; 50-50 in yr 2 etc"

His twitter timeline has some more information on what happened today.

Things Happening Today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ECHL starts soon. Sure its a kings affiliate but its hockey. Above all we love the game.

http://ontarioreign.com/home/

AHHHHH don't even get me started on this. It is the single most frustrating thing that I have ever dealt with in the realm of hockey. Even more frustrating then watching the Canucks melt down in the last two finals!! What happened with the moving of the Ice Dogs was criminal. I loved let me say that again loved being able to go watch "pro" hockey for ten bucks. I could care less how many people showed up, though the lock out year was stellar. I loved Spike, I loved the cheap Heinekens and hot dogs. I loved chuck a puck, and I even loved the sub par talent. Did you know Nikolai Khabibulin was an Ice Dog?

The way the whole thing went down was awful and I still to this day as a long beach native feel like part of my town was torn away kicking and screaming. I can feel the poor Nordique fans, though they may get a team again, but not LB. Enjoy them while you can, I had an absolute blast going to the Dog games. Your lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...