Jump to content

See What You've Done Bettman and Goodenow?


DEAD!

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't be so upset if they were at least talking to each other, but they aren't. I thought part of their job was to get things done, make sure that there is hockey to be played. If they're not interested in doing that, then the league should find someone who is, and hte same goes for the players union.

If they're not careful, the NHL is going to end up like MLB after their lockout and they'll have no one to blame but themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL needs to be locked out for a few seasons. There must be bled. For it's own health. It seems bad now, but 10 years from now, the league will be better off for it.

This, unfortunatly, is nessecary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all Goodenow. Bettman is doing what he can to save the league.

Right, the league/owners/Bettman are fluffing blameless in this whole thing. :rolleyes:

Goodenow wants more and more money which the NHL doesn't and will never have. Bettman wants a salary cap to save a lot of teams. I'm not saying there blameless, but most of the blame should be pointed at Goodenow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all Goodenow. Bettman is doing what he can to save the league.

Right, the league/owners/Bettman are fluffing blameless in this whole thing. :rolleyes:

Goodenow wants more and more money which the NHL doesn't and will never have. Bettman wants a salary cap to save a lot of teams. I'm not saying there blameless, but most of the blame should be pointed at Goodenow.

You said "It's all Goodenow" (emphasis mine). If it's all Goodenow, then none of it is anyone else's fault.

Aside from that, I disagree with you (that doesn't mean I'm the polar opposite, placing all the blame on Bettman), but I'm not going to argue because I know I'm in the minority and I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all Goodenow. Bettman is doing what he can to save the league.

Right, the league/owners/Bettman are fluffing blameless in this whole thing. :rolleyes:

Goodenow wants more and more money which the NHL doesn't and will never have. Bettman wants a salary cap to save a lot of teams. I'm not saying there blameless, but most of the blame should be pointed at Goodenow.

You said "It's all Goodenow" (emphasis mine). If it's all Goodenow, then none of it is anyone else's fault.

Aside from that, I disagree with you (that doesn't mean I'm the polar opposite, placing all the blame on Bettman), but I'm not going to argue because I know I'm in the minority and I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again.

Well I meant around 85% of it is Goodenow's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no...here's what the NHL should do.

Bettman: Okay, we're shutting down completely.

Goodenow: So?

Bettman: I mean, the NHL. It's gone. No more NHL.

Goodenow: Because you don't have a cap. Wah wah wah...

Bettman: And we're starting a new league. With a cap.

Goodenow: ...huh?

Bettman: That's right. A new league with a hard cap. We've already lined up new owners in most of the popular cities, and bought back the trademarks on the Original Six.

Goodenow: You can't do this!

Bettman: Yes, I can. So, you tell your players that they can join the new league if they want to play with a cap, or they can enjoy their midnight-to-six shift at the local 24-hour Tim Horton's.

Goodenow: ...

NHL Fans: PWNED! :hockeysmiley::hockeysmiley:

EDIT: Say, this seems pretty cool! And we're not talking about the ESPNHL, I mean re-inventing the entire damn league, and creating new concepts, logos, and stuff like that! NEW PROJECT COMING HERE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's so crazy it just might work...heck, the NHL was born under similar circumstances. The NHA, the NHL's predecessor, had four teams: the Habs, the Senators, the Montreal Wanderers and the Toronto Blueshirts. The Blueshirts owner was hated by the other three owners so much that these three found a new Toronto owner, left the NHA and formed a new league, which they dubbed the National Hockey League. The NHA was more or less left as a one-team league, and one team's not much of a league ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL needs to be locked out for a few seasons. There must be bled. For it's own health. It seems bad now, but 10 years from now, the league will be better off for it.

This, unfortunatly, is nessecary.

How? How can the league be better off if there are no fans? The longer this goes the worse it is for the league in the long run. The NHL has had problems building a fan base, it's hard to build one when your not playing games. The longer this goes more of the current fans turn there back never to comeback.

That means there will be less fans 10 years from now, because guess what the reason why the NHL has a small fan base is not because of the economics of the game. The main reason why the NHL has a small fan base is because hockey is a game that you can't easily go out and play a pick up game when your young in half of the United States. People become fans when they are young by playing the games. Organized hockey is very expensive to play. A stick can cost you about $150 alone. My skates cost me $500. And that's just equipment, cost to join a team are well in the thousands of dollars. So the only other way people play the game is by pick-up pond hockey games, but in the south and areas where it doesn't get cold enough you can't do that. That's the reason why hockey is very popular in the Northern US and Canada. That makes it hard to gain a national interest. A lockout only chases away current fans.

You don't belive me, look at baseball. It took 10 years to recover from a strike that wiped out the World Series. And that's a sport with national interest. Hockey would recover. Which leads me back to my original question, How can the league be better off with out any fans? Just say the rest off the season is cancelled and a hard cap is put in place. The teams will still lose money if there are no fans. The owners fail to realize this.

The blame for the mess is on the owners. Hockey would be better off if a luxury tax was put in place and the owners go for a hard cap in the next cba. If they took small steps they would be more succesful and hockey would be better off becuase then there would be a cap with little if any games missed. As for the players they have blame but not as much. They are looking out for themselves but so would us. If your boss came up to you and said the company was losing money and asked you to take a pay cut would you? No! And I don't want to hear that they are milllionares, because it's easy for some one with less to say they would just be happy with what they had if they had more. Taking a pay cut, no matter how much you make, goes against human nature. Again if you made just as much money you would probably not take a pay cut if asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Canada, it would take the NHL no more than 2 and a half years to recover from a lockout two seasons long, if that. Most fans would be so giddy about the return of hockey, they'd forget the hard line bargaining. A big difference between this and baseball is that in baseball, millionaire players were asking for more. In hockey, millionaire players will have to accept less.

In the US, it will take far longer. Many teams outside of traditional markets would have to shut down. If the lockout itself doesn't kill them, after a year of returning they'd be hemorhaging so much money they'd have no choice. Hockey would return to its roots.

Then, hockey could learn from its lessons. Using a workable financial framework, they'd slowly rebuild their American presence, continuously developing strong support further and further south.

The blame for the mess is the owners. Everyone knows that. But to go halfway at this point would be the NHL's last mistake.

A luxury tax works in theory, but in practice, if the Rangers' owner wants to spend $100 million over the threshold, with a generous dollar-for-dollar luxury tax, the other 29 teams get less than $3.5 million. That's immediately a $96.5 million difference. Sure, it discourages overspending, but it still favours large markets. To make hockey work, you need a level playing field.

Some short-term pain for long-term gain? I'll take it, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument here.

The game needs a MUCH bigger presence in the US than it does now.

I'm not talking new teams.

I mean promoting the damn game, getting it wedged into the American sports landscape, and keeping it there.

Think 1980s Miracle on Ice, except the Miracle is getting the average American to watching what's on the ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument here.

The game needs a MUCH bigger presence in the US than it does now.

I'm not talking new teams.

I mean promoting the damn game, getting it wedged into the American sports landscape, and keeping it there.

Think 1980s Miracle on Ice, except the Miracle is getting the average American to watching what's on the ice.

I think to do that, you have to follow the lead of MLB and the NBA. When I see commercials for match-ups, they always show the top young players on each team, and play up the meeting between the two. the NHL needs to do something like that.

On that note, watching TSN today, it brought up a very real very harsh reality when I saw it. THey were talking about Steve yzerman, argueable one of the best players of this generation, and a player we're not likely to see again, and how this missed season may push him into retirement. Just stop and think, this has caused EVERY player to in essense lose a season of their careers...the thought that Yzerman could be finished after a lock-out year, not going out in a blaze of glory or in a playoff dog fight, the way he played his whole career brought a tear to my eye.

IMO, he is likely the last player in Pro-Sports that will ever play his entire career, (not a short career either, 20+ years) in one city, for one team (Not to forget Joe Sakic). Thinking about him and Joe coming near the end of their careers, it just brings in that wakeup call that the NHL has changed, and that we'll never see a guy like Yzerman anymore in the age where once again, a 50 goal season is something that only the best player in the league will record

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument here.

The game needs a MUCH bigger presence in the US than it does now.

I'm not talking new teams.

I mean promoting the damn game, getting it wedged into the American sports landscape, and keeping it there.

Think 1980s Miracle on Ice, except the Miracle is getting the average American to watching what's on the ice.

I think to do that, you have to follow the lead of MLB and the NBA. When I see commercials for match-ups, they always show the top young players on each team, and play up the meeting between the two. the NHL needs to do something like that.

On that note, watching TSN today, it brought up a very real very harsh reality when I saw it. THey were talking about Steve yzerman, argueable one of the best players of this generation, and a player we're not likely to see again, and how this missed season may push him into retirement. Just stop and think, this has caused EVERY player to in essense lose a season of their careers...the thought that Yzerman could be finished after a lock-out year, not going out in a blaze of glory or in a playoff dog fight, the way he played his whole career brought a tear to my eye.

IMO, he is likely the last player in Pro-Sports that will ever play his entire career, (not a short career either, 20+ years) in one city, for one team (Not to forget Joe Sakic). Thinking about him and Joe coming near the end of their careers, it just brings in that wakeup call that the NHL has changed, and that we'll never see a guy like Yzerman anymore in the age where once again, a 50 goal season is something that only the best player in the league will record

mike modano is another 1-team guy... said he wants to be the yzerman of dallas, at one point... and he's not a spring chicken, himself :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't care about the game losing popularity in the U.S. or anywhere where its not wanted. Here's a question: Why does the game NEED to grow? Why do we care whether hockey is liked by people in Tennesee?

In the 80s and early 90s the game had its ups and downs economically, but all in all, it was thriving. Now teams are losing millions. What's wrong with an NHL that exists in 20 true hockey markets, rather than scattering as far as it can geographically.

The minute they pull the plug on the southern experiment the sooner hockey will start to heal. (That's not to say that all southern teams are a bad idea - some teams like Dallas worked out well).

As far as one-team players... what about Mario? Yeah, I know, we've already seen him retire about 66 times, but it'd still be nice to see him play again too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no...here's what the NHL should do.

Bettman: Okay, we're shutting down completely.

Goodenow: So?

Bettman: I mean, the NHL. It's gone. No more NHL.

Goodenow: Because you don't have a cap. Wah wah wah...

Bettman: And we're starting a new league. With a cap.

Goodenow: ...huh?

Bettman: That's right. A new league with a hard cap. We've already lined up new owners in most of the popular cities, and bought back the trademarks on the Original Six.

Goodenow: You can't do this!

Bettman: Yes, I can. So, you tell your players that they can join the new league if they want to play with a cap, or they can enjoy their midnight-to-six shift at the local 24-hour Tim Horton's.

Goodenow: ...

NHL Fans: PWNED! :hockeysmiley::hockeysmiley:

EDIT: Say, this seems pretty cool! And we're not talking about the ESPNHL, I mean re-inventing the entire damn league, and creating new concepts, logos, and stuff like that! NEW PROJECT COMING HERE!

Gary Bettman, the hero and savior of hockey? Surely you jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed a few others I guess. It's hard sometimes trying to remember players who have been around for 10 or more seasons with a single team now, I don't know how I missed Mario, whos come and gone, come and gone, and Modano. THere are probably some more out there too, Stevey Y stood out once I saw the number 21 seasons with Detroit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't care about the game losing popularity in the U.S. or anywhere where its not wanted. Here's a question: Why does the game NEED to grow? Why do we care whether hockey is liked by people in Tennesee?

ok im kinda offended on that on,being from Tennessee,Nashville to be exact,im sick of hearind all this stuff about how Nashville doesn't deserve a NHL team,in fact i was talking about this particular topic w/ my dad the other dayand we have something that the other sunbelt clubs doesn't and that is snow i was sitting here frezzing my @$$ off the other day in 20 degree weather so if y'all gotta use somebody for an example use Atlanta because i know for a fact that the fans there are fair weathered one,and as far as marketing i think the problem is they haven't been trying hard enough to sell the game to minorities(im afro american by the way),i mean granted they are about (and i may be wrong) 10 minorities played in the league last season,and if the league have had any thought of this concept,that league wouldn't have all these problems,that's just my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.