OT: NHL's Last Chance?
 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

:mad:

honestly, I'd rather see NO season at this point.

It's over, folks. Move along.

I think sachmo71 summed up my feelings on this QUITE well back in October...


:(

And the ship goes sailing past the port.

.....and it's the Dallas Stars Ultimate Collection, which is a show that hilights big games in Dallas Stars history......

How long was this show?

30 seconds?:D

Well, at least the NHL has that going for it, right? :rolleyes:

I think the show was long enough to show six slow-motion replays of Brett Hull's skate in the crease.

Highlight #3 -- the day that Billy Bob finally figured out the icing rule.

(Sorry. Bitter hockey fan here.)

Jason Spezza doesn't seem to mind. He's going crazy in the AHL.

I don't miss hockey at this point. At least what the current state of hockey is. What I miss is the hockey of the 80's, when the skilled players were allowed to skate and less talented teams weren't propped up by the rules allowing them to mug the skilled players. Unless the NHL can come back in a better state, I could care less if it dies on the vine.

I would have said that about MLB a couple seasons ago but the past season has begun to look more like real baseball and less like a glorified homerun derby with steroid injected freaks.

The NBA can just go away as well. Unless they actually start calling the game by it's official rules again and not turning it into "street ball".

The NFL is about the only league that seems to get it.

Finally a perfect league for him to play in....All offense no defense ;)

definitly

Agreed. It would most definitely cut into the Poker broadcasts ;)

No wonder you're bitter!

ZING!!!! :)

Edit: Oops. Forgot to mention Kerry Fraser!
/ducks

I've been catching up on an awful lot of Crank Yankers and South Park reruns this hockey season. There is just nothing else on without hockey. I've even almost finished my Columbo Season 1 DVD - the entire 5 discs.

The timing of this whole thing just sucks. When I left for Europe at the begining of 2002 everything was great! The Wings had assembled one of the greatest line-ups in NHL history and were on their way to their Third cup in six years.

Now, I come back and there's nothing. Nothing... At the moment, I am sort of used to not watching hockey. It was a tough adjustment, but after 3 years you get used to listening to it on the internet, in the morning, at work, well after the game is over.

It's going to hit right around the first/second week of April. Play-off tme. There is a certain type of spring day that always, always, reminds of the play-offs. When that day happens and there is no hockey to be watched...

Maybe it will finally be time for me to break out my VHS collection of every Red Wings play-off victory in '97, '98, and '00. Good times... Good times...

See, lucky for me, I enjoy hockey and use it to fill up my winters, but it's not what baseball is to me. By March, I'll be so into baseball that I won't remember hockey even exists. And then there's March Madness. And then in April, baseball starts for real and we've got the NFL draft.

Aside from now through February, I think it is more likely to hit me in June than any other time, when the basketball playoffs get into high gear (yuck).

Hey, you're lucky to have a 'greatest games' collection in storage. My good old days are the days of the Whale. If Karmanos made a similar collection, he would show the trucks hauling everything away.

:weeps for the good old days of Hartford Whalers hockey:

You're bitter about what?

I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but I can't remember you line of thinking. Since I know that I still respect you, it must have been deeper than what I'm reading here.

As in "bitter about there being no hockey, and just randomly lashing out at everyone". Nothing personal against Stars fans.

You know... I just got to thinking about what makes me realize I like hockey so much more than other stuff... in other sports, when someone roots for another team, I might not like it, but I understand it.

In hockey, when someone roots for the Wings, or the Avs, I think to myself "What the hell is wrong with them?!?!" Just don't get that same feeling with other sports.

~rpi-fan :mad:

Good to hear. :)

What?!?!?

Explain yourself, man!

What's wrong with rooting for the Wings? They're a beacon of light! They're all good. Steve Yzerman, man! Steve. Yzerman. I could go on, but I think, in the immortal words of Stan Lee, that's "'nuff said."

But I totally get your point about Avs fans. It's a character flaw.

According to Mike and Mike in the morning on ESPN today, the current proposal includes a season of 24 games, followed by a playoff in which all teams are included. It would be a series of 3 games up until either the semi-finals or the Stanley Cup finals....

Not sure how true this is, but tell me that wouldn't generate excitement for hockey again.

ANYTHING

Haha, I'm an Isles fan, just bitter at all teams with big pocketbooks, pretty much (and yes, I'm implying that the Wings owner carries a pocketbook:)).

Ah! The Isle!!

Well, yeah, Ilitch does have a rather sizeable pocket book and tends to get the players he wants. I can see where it'd be frustrating, especially if you're stuck with (1) Mad Mike making all sorts of f'd up moves and (2) watching hockey in the Mausoleum.

After taking the Isles over in EHM:FE (it was a random selection), that Yashin deal is one huge freaking albatros around the neck of the team. He's making $8.5 million a year until 2011!! That's freakin' insane!

It might seem that way, but without him the Isles just fall apart out there, even though he isn't putting up the big numbers. I don't think they can make the playoffs without him.

Edit: And Milbury demonstrated he's learned his lesson when passing over Amonte, Kariya, Selanne, et al.

This is almost a carbon copy of my feelings except I don't really care that much for the NFL. It's good and all but it still is third to me behind baseball with hockey happily in second.

SI

My first thought is that a 24-game series would be fascinating, with every game mattering almost as much as an NFL game.

My second thought is that allowing every team into the playoffs pretty much kills off my first throught.

Agreed. That makes the 24 game regular season basically little more than a 24 game pre-season.

They should do a 24 games season. First round is best 3 of 5 and the rest best 4 out of 7. Like the old NBA style.

I understand why they want to let everyone in the playoffs this year, but that's just not really possible because 30 teams doesn't fit well into a bracket. That would mean that 1 team in each conference would get a bye. What they should do is let 24 teams into the playoffs, which would give 4 teams a first round bye. Play this prelim rounds either 2/3 or 3/5.

I found both of these interesting, although not surprising in the least.


Baseball players do not want to see the NHL succeed in getting a cap. This is why MLBPA head Donald Fehr has been in touch with NHL union chief Bob Goodenow and it is why, as some of the Penguins have confided, baseball players actually have penned letters to hockey players advising them to hang tough through the lockout. Fehr and the baseball players have no wish to be standing alone on an island.
-- Post-Gazette.com
A Zogby poll conducted in December found that only 42 percent of Americans knew the NHL season hadn't started yet. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, 50 percent of those surveyed said they would not be disappointed if the 2004-05 season were canceled. The NHL is supported by a limited percentage of the population. That might suggest those fans will return once the games do. When the NHL returned with a 48-game season after a lockout to begin the 1994-95 season, leaguewide attendance went up. So the fan base may be silent, but many suggest the majority likely will return to the game.
-- Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Indeed. Also, the Stanley Cup should be awarded to the best team in Canada which was the original deal made by Lord Stanley. Fuck the NHL, give it to the winner of the AHL or the CHL playoffs.

If they are going to let everyone into the playoffs, why even have a season at all?

My license plate reads, "Bleed Blue" - actually "BLBLUE". I miss hockey, especially now that football is coming to a close and baseball is still a bit away.


Todd

Might I suggest a slight revision to your license plate? How about "H_Blue"? It'd be a hit with the ladies!

My first thought exactly ... until I remembered that the owners don't give a damn about the game, only about a chance to make a buck.

and


Hmm ... that kinda makes me think that hockey attendance, or the reasoning used by many who buy tickets, is probably better paralleled to concerts than to other US sports. It isn't so much a "I've just got to see a game" as it is "Let's go do something"

:)


Todd

I'm no Gump but...WHY couldn't the management of the NHL teams open the doors and say, if you want to play, come on in! They could work out a salary that was incentive rich and offer the same one to everyone...AND...when no one shows up, you declare this as a work stoppage/strike NOT a lockout...

Then BRING ON THE SCABS!!! It worked in the NFL!

Oh and then, last but not least, you FIRE Bittman...bring the NHL back to 24, relocating several of the teams back to Canada; Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg(Phoenix), Quebec(Nashville), Oshawa(TB), Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, & Toronto(x2 +FLA). Keep Boston, Chicago, Detroit, NYRangers, Philadelphia, St. Louis, LAKings, Colorado(just leave'm out there i guess), combine the old Stars with the Wild(NorthStars), New Jersey, Pittsburgh & Buffalo(maybe ;). Go ahead and keep the Ducks(cause they have the money backing them) and then let the rest BID on the final spot, high bid gets in...with preference given to teams in the league prior to 1989 ;)

THEN, change the names BACK to Prince of Wales and Campbell DAMNIT. Smythe, Norris, Adams and Patrick as well...BECAUSE its history...without considering a leagues history, why not just change Lord Stanley's Cup to the Nextel Trophy or the Alltel Cup, let the highest bidder change the name year to year...BEcause its HISTORY...Bittmen didn't forget this...HE NEVER KNEW IT!!! ARRRRRRGGGGG!!!

Ok, just had a pissed off "KING OF THE WORLD" moment, sorry...thanks for reading tho.

I doubt the owners would be able to do this as the players have contracts.

It makes it easier to see who I should run off the road

SI

not if they "folded" and renamed themselves the NLH (National League of Hockey). i'm sure these contracts have buyouts too.

i alwasy wished the owners would sac-up and just start over with new players. force the new players to sign a contract beneficial to the league. make it so that "if you want to play hockey for this league, you'll do so under our terms" kind of thing. owners in every psorts except football have given players unions waaaay too much power.

You may be right...I got the cart infront of the horse, so-to-speak.

Its important to make this a "strike" as opposed to a 'lockout' or 'work-stoppage'. If the players are refusing to work, then that should nullify some or all of their current contracts. I think that was an underlying theme to the NFL Strike in the 80s when the Scabs played...if they don't want to play for their current salary, we can find someone who will suit up!

Last one out turn off the lights eh.......and the ice maker.

The ladies would certainly NOT like that. No. They wouldn't like that at all.

Because the league and the union work under a CBA, the league can not just unilaterally declare new working conditions (even if some players would accept them). At least not yet.

The league needs to go to court to declare an impasse in talks. When that happens, then they can simply declare a new CBA and open the doors for the players (and scabs). But in order to get a court to agree on an impasse they have to show that they've bargained in good faith and tried to reach a deal. And that means that realistically they need to let at least a year go by.

The league swears up and down that replacement players are not part of the plan. But a cynic would suggest that this entire year of "talks" has just been a smokescreen -- a case of the league doing the minimum amount of talking necessary allow them to declare an impasse after a year, and follow the NFL model of using scabs to break the union.

i hope that's the case.

i agree with it - they certainly let a lto fo time in between meetings go by. not like the NBA, where both sides met almost on a daily basis trying to hammer something out. there is no sense of urgency on the NHL's part. with their stance that they lose less money by not playing, it seems like they made that to justify a lack of willingless to hammer something out and simply let time run it's course.

in any event i'd really become a fan of the game if that happens.

Agreed and well put...now, do we start this year of 'talks' from September 9th or can we retroactively move it back to say, sometime early in '04? Please...I don't mind loosing a year of NHL...2 years, well thats pushing it, but if it means we can have hockey back and done up RIGHT...I will sacrifice some of our aging players for that.

You have to catch me first. :)


Todd

That was my 2nd choice. :p


Todd

yeah - hopefully it'd be early in '04. but realistically the "clock" probably started when the first offer/proposal was made.

i'm fully convinced that the NHL is not in negotiating mode anymore. i think they're at the point where so much time has been wasted and they've dug their heels so deep into the ground that they're prepared to wait it out as long as possible so that they get as many concessions from the Players Union as possible. short term lockouts don't hurt the players, but long term ones always will. the plaeyrs are dealing with owners and corporations that consider their NHL team just one of many assets and can afford (by and large) to sit out longer. there's always the Euro leagues, but i think they're only a long term option for European-born players. you can't tell me North Americans would actually want to play in Russia or Norway.

this far into the game, murmurs of scabs are going to become louder. we're getting to the point where the players can lose big on this one. how many of you want NHL - any NHL hockey - be it with scabs or pre-lockout players? the hardcore fans of the game (i'm not one of them) just want their hockey no matter who laces up at this point.

Actually, I would like to think that the hardcore fans would recognize it for what it is: a cheap sham. Hell, you can already go see all the scab players play in the AHL, ECHL, juniors, college, for what I'm sure is a fraction of the price of what they would charge in the NHL.

Also, remember that in the NFL, they had not lost a whole season prior to bringing in the replacement players. That totally alters the landscape now for the NHL.

In the NFL situation, it was strike not a lockout. The players decided to not work in the midele of the season, so the owners could bring in replacements. Different situation, where the owners have decided to operate under the old CBA.

Even without a CBA you can keep "working" under the old agreement. The players have no problem with that so it is the owners who are deciding to stop working until a new solution can be agreed upon.

Todd

I don't understand what's going on with the NHLPA - do they not understand that they have ZERO bargaining chips? For starters hockey is a niche market to begin with and for second some owners are losing less money by NOT playing as opposed to if their team was playing so the owners aren't going to cave in anytime soon.

On top of that the NHL lacks what the NFL, MLB and NBA have and that's superstar presence. The NHL does not market its individuals - I truly believe you could replace the NHL players with players from any of the other leagues and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. There is no Gretzky or Lemieux in the league and guys who were at one time perhaps household names like an Yzerman are on the decline in their career or nearing the end of it. The other major sports have name players that have been marketed as individuals that people care about and would care if they were replaced by scabs (Bonds, A-Rod, Michael Vick, Peyton, TO, Iverson, McGrady, LeBron...)

The NHLPA is screwed and they're running 5th at best in terms of pro sports (with NASCAR being in the mix) - why is it so hard to accept the fact that they're screwed and they better take what they can get before they get NOTHING?

I disagree, at least in some markets. The example that comes to mind is Atlanta, probably just because I'm more familiar with it.

In terms of image, the Thrashers are basically Kovalchuk & Heatley ... and a bunch of other guys. The rest are probably interchangeable to the average fan, but those two ... those guys, for better or worse, are the Thrashers.

Excellent point IMO, although the player-haters aren't likely to agree very much.

If I want to see minor league hockey, I'll go down to Macon or up to Gwinnett.
Whether the owners like it or not, seeing top players is the attraction, not the logo on the jersey.

I wish that we had a AHL team here in Gwinnett as opposed to ECHL. I used to go to about 25-30 Hershey Bear AHL games a year and that quality of hockey is a lot better than what the ECHL can deliver. I would pay similar prices to that league but I just can't get into the ECHL.

But we haven't been able to see the top players play for years, because of all the trapping and interference.

The owners haven't done anything about that (such as firing the coaches who insist on playing that mind-numbing style), so why would this be any different? If you'll pay to watch Modano and Sundin skate into a clogged neutral zone, dump it into the corner like zombies, and then be tackled as they cross the blue line, why wouldn't you pay to watch Gus Zaplanksi do the same?

Did someone say Zarley Zalapski?

Which is exactly why I think starting a short season now would solve absolutely none of hockey's problems, at least, not the ones that matter to the fans.

Well, to me...and I may be speaking for a very slim few...seeing competitive and FUN hockey is what I like. I've had FAR more fun at an Arkansas Glaciercats/Shreveport Mudbugs game than at the majority of the Blues/Redwings or Stars/Preds games I've seen. The 'ski behind the puck carrier' or the 'lets hook/slash/hold/interfere with anyone who tries to cross the blueline' game just gets boring!

Basically its ridiculous to see the way the game has evolved since the mid to late 80s...maybe this is opening up another can of worms(one for a different thread/forum). Someone here mentioned earlier that the NHL doesn't have the star power that the other three pro leagues have, all I can point to is to the past. When the game was fun to watch and it was AFFORDABLE to attend one, they had Stars of the highest level; Gretzky, Bossy, Savard, Laflur, Hextall, Fhur, Smith(lots of them) and a very young kid they called the 'Next One'.

I don't know, I think hockey is still a game of guts, blood and desire...the players have forgotten that and if it means I have to see average players playing the game that they(and I) love, it will be fun to watch. I enjoy junior games, bantam or whatever, travel A tourneys are fun cause the kids love the game and they will BLEED for it. I guess I am an Eddie Shore kinda guy and just a lover of the game of hockey...sure if the best players play, all the better but hell, hockey is hockey. It's like sex and pizza...even when its bad it beats NONE at all!

you're wrong Jon. his point wasn't the NHL doesn't have stars on every team. his point is the league doesn't have must-see players/household names. just becuase you know the only 2 stars on the Thrashers doesn't mean your average family out west knows about them or cares.

no..it's not the top players. it's seeing the game played at a high level. on any given team there's only one or two difference makers, the rest are average ability players or roster filler types. people go to be entertained for the most part, and while it's to be expected that in the initial first few seasons of NHL-with-replacement players people would cut the game some slack. prices would be able to come down drastically because your average team wouldn't have a Jagr or Yashin weighing down the finances. i think a lot would be forgiven in the interest of seeing the league "get it right". i'd support the NHL wholeheartedly if they did. i'm very jaded when it comes to all-powerful player unions.

I've been following every bit of news but it's got to the point where I don't want to hear anything anymore until a settlement is done. I used to be adamant about a hard cap but now I just want to know that when it's all said and done, my team (ie., any small market team) is still in the league and has a viable chance to win the cup every year if they have good roster management. If my team still exists but becomes a feeder for the rest of the league, I'm done watching. I'm pretty certain with Flames primary owner Harley Hotchkiss as Chairman of the Board of Governors, any deal won't be detrimental to small markets.

FWIW, this sites says that the NHL teams are asking the players in Europe to return, so, something may be cooking.

http://www.hockeyfans.at/c.php?c=6&op=news&nid=15015

Here is the translation:

It does which in things Lockout. If one regards the last hours and the developments of Europe, then the impossible could become nevertheless still possible: a NHL season! Already in the today's afternoon reported Hockeyfans.at over rumors from Sweden, according to which the NHL of associations would have ordered their teams for 3 February to North America. Now there is a second source, which confirms this. Therefore the Calgary Flames zurueckbeordert today all their players to Canada - normal way a clear indication for the fact that one stands before a beginning of season! The information originates from very well informed circles, which have direct contacts to NHL associations and partly even than Scouts in Europe to function. The NHL and the player trade union NHLPA will meet meanwhile tonight again in New York to discussions. Contents are not well-known yet, the fans remain hope that one gets to see nevertheless still another NHL season, even if this will have effects on the European leagues and also the WM in Austria! Meanwhile there are first messages also in US radios, whereafter the NHL season start is to be imminent! The date: Saturday, 5 February!

ugggh, until I see an official announcement I'm not getting my hopes up.

i hope they come back with a salary cap, or this was all for nothing.

Things aren't looking good at all; apparently the meeting today broke up with no plans to meet again.

Not that I care; I'm in a town with a major junior team, two junior A teams, a few decent college/university teams and more good lower-level teams than I can count. Screw the NHL and their $60 tickets, I've got more hockey available here than I can watch.

Incidentally, if you're willing to take it with a very large grain of salt, there's an interesting blog at http://hockeyrumors.blogspot.com/ . Opinion on other hockey boards is pretty sharply divided as to whether the guy's for real or not, but even if he isn't, he's writing some damned entertaining fiction.

Hell yeah HA...hard cap all the way...maybe then me and my wife can drive 6+ hours to watch a game and not short-change my kids college hopes.

And I am not THAT old either, but, the first game I saw was the Devils(green&red days) and Blues in 1987. It was $11 to sit right behind the home goal. Thats almost 20 years ago I know but I'd can see paying 3x that but not $50+ for the NOSEBLEED section...gawd, maybe I AM old.

Prices may come down in the short term with a cap because the owners are going to need to bribe fans into coming back to arenas. If you really think prices will go down long term, you're wrong.

Funny how Olympic tickets, world juniors and such are expensive tickets but the players make nothing.

What I thought was a good article on the subject.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/spo...9937321.htm?1c

The NHL has three options:

1) cave
2) present a final offer that will be implemented unilaterally after trying for impasse
3) wait until the players run out of money and come crawling back

Personally, I'm hoping for number three. With #2, there are too many uncertainties with the NLRB and the multitude of inevitable lawsuits the NHLPA will file.

Waiting it out means it's just a matter of time before the players come back. Sure, in the meantime, the Euros will go home and a few elite North Americans will go overseas to play for a fraction of what they could be making under a cap. The rest will be playing for regular minor league wages. Many will have to find something else to do.

When they come back, the owners go for the jugular. A hard cap set at 50% of revenue which might have fallen to as low as $500 million, no guaranteed contracts, no bonuses, etc., etc. Absolutely crush them. The damage to the game is done - it's time to go for the kill.

Bitter about the players much?

World Juniors?? When they were in Halifax, tickets were like $20 average... and most of that went to the cost of running the event. Of course the Olympics are a different story... they're just a scham as it is.

Yeaaah...I'm going to have to ask you to go ahead and cut-n-paste that article. Don't really feel like registering for the site.

Mmmkay?
:)

I registered for there when I was doing a paper for a Poly Sci class earlier this year so here goes:

That is really weird, I was able to view it before without subscribing.

fyi, www.bugmenot.com is great for getting around registering at most sites.

On the NHL | No cap coming for ticket prices

By Tim Panaccio

Inquirer Columnist


Among the arguments that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has made for a salary cap in the next collective-bargaining agreement is that rising ticket prices are tied to player salaries.

If you buy that, then the $85 top price at the Wachovia Center is due to the $9 million the Flyers are paying John LeClair and the $7.5 million going to Jeremy Roenick.

Yes, salaries have had a trickle-down effect on the fans. Yet even if the NHL adopts a salary cap, prices won't be rolled back significantly - if at all.

When the Flyers moved from the Spectrum to the CoreStates Center in 1996, ticket prices rose. That first season, the top ticket price was $62, up from $55 at the Spectrum the previous year. The Flyers' payroll that season was $19 million.

Last season, the Flyers' payroll was $57.3 million, with a top ticket price of $85.

So, ticket prices have increased $23 - about 37 percent - since 1996-97, while the Flyers' payroll has increased more than 200 percent over the same period. The point? The price of Flyers hockey already was high before the payroll became outrageous.

At least the Flyers are putting the money into talent.

Look at Nashville. The Predators had the lowest payroll in hockey last year at $21 million, yet their average ticket price was still $42.50. Their highest-priced ticket matched the Flyers' $85, and none of their players made more than $2 million.

Columbus had a payroll of $32 million and an average ticket price of $41. The Blue Jackets' highest ticket price is $138 at the glass. None of the Blue Jackets players made more than $3.5 million last year.

How about that miserly Bill Wirtz in Chicago? His fans pay an average of $50 a game and all they get in return is a payroll of $30 million. The Blackhawks' highest ticket price is $250 at the glass. Wirtz' highest-paid player last season was Alexei Zhamnov ($4.5 million), who was traded to the Flyers.

Every one of these clubs has a payroll below Bettman's revised cap proposal of $33 million. So what are the odds those teams will drop ticket prices with a cap that is higher than what they spend now?

Oh, yeah. How about the World Cup of Hockey that ended last month? Top-end tickets in Toronto for the semifinals cost roughly $260. Were fans forced to pay that much because the players chosen in the tournament were making too much money?

Or were those prices high to guarantee a fat profit? What do you think?

Not a single proposal the NHL has made to the players contains language mandating that clubs scale back ticket prices.

Some clubs - the Flyers included - are considering plans to scale back the price of a certain number of selected seats, depending on the seat location and what kind of deal the teams get in the next bargaining agreement.

Polls show that public opinion throughout North America supports the owners in the lockout. That doesn't mean, however, that every one of the owners' arguments stands up.

The next time you hear management blame rising ticket prices on player salaries, remind them of how prices jumped everywhere in the NHL when new buildings opened and payrolls were still within reason.

And remind them there are clubs that don't spend money on talent but still gouge their fans.

Sorry, but you're wrong on the world juniors and "cost recovery"

http://www.london.ca/Mainpage/news_hockey_jan29.htm

clipped from the article.

Among the financial details of the London-Kitchener bid were projected ticket sales of $7.6-million and total revenues of $11.05 million (including a $1-million grant from the Government of Ontario); an estimated net event surplus of $5.9 million; and a projected direct economic impact for the region of approximately $25 million. London and Kitchener had also offered to jointly guarantee a $4.6-million profit for Hockey Canada and the Canadian Hockey League – $3.91 million backed by London and the remaining $690,000 by Kitchener.

This off the backs of kids getting paid $100 a week.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam040129/chl_bid-cp.html

While an NHL-sized arena and a guaranteed profit of $5.2 million helped, the fact that Vancouver will host the world's biggest winter sporting event within four years of the 2006 junior hockey tournament was a major selling point.

And on to Halifax in 1993

http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home...oseheads1200+2

To appreciate why requires an understanding of the ground rules for winning world junior hosting rights. This process is very much about money.For the 2003 world championships, all the cities bidding to be host will present a plan that will leave an after tournament profit of at least $2,000,000 to be divided up by various Canadian amateur hockey groups. How much bidders can promise over that mark will go a long way in determining how they fare with the selection committee. No doubt about it, this is big business.

Sorry to burst your bubble, it's not about love of the game anywhere above midget or bantam.

:)

Edit.

Also, according to the article above, world junior tickets were $580 for 20 games or $29 per. I tried to find the average NHL ticket in 2003 but haven't been able to so far. In 01/02 it was $49 so you were paying 60% of the cost of an NHL game to see kids making nothing.

http://www.hockeyarenas.com/fancost/...ageenglish.htm

You're quoting Chris Cochrane - I realize he's just a local journalist who no one here has likely heard of - but that's like listening to FOX News and saying they're the least biased new source out there. Or like saying Joe Morgan knows what he's talking about when he talking about clutch hitting.

Using the $590 ticket package for Halifax that you quoted - $590 * 10,500 = $6,195,000. Add on to whatever revenue the Cape Breton site generated (lets say, $2,000,000) and that gives us around $8,000,000 in revenues for the tournament. So the costs elminated 75% of the revenue, and the rest went to amateur hockey... and the problem is?

BTW, I never said it was for the love of the game in the pros. Just defending the World Jrs and the CHL here. :)


Again, the $580 for 20 games was at the Halifax site, which was inflated due to the playoff games being held there. Tickets at Cape Breton brought the average cost down.

Fair enough, I'd never heard of Chris Cochrane, just using what google gives me :)

I don't have a problem with minor hockey making money off juniors whatsoever. I just can't stand the argument that ticket prices will go down if salaries do and was trying to show that even using free labour, businessmen will sell tickets for what the market will bear.

Sure, and that point is very true. Even if the NHL players were playing for free, the owners would charge whatever would get them the most revenue. I won't argue that point one bit. :)

Umm ... and the difference in that is ??? The top players are the ones who "play the game at a high level". And without them, it is not played at a high level. I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me here, although I'm almost positive you meant to.


HA, and I mean this sincerely, I believe you're smarter than that.

FTR, I've seen more Atlanta Knights (back in the day), Macon Whoopee, and Macon Trax games than I've seen Atlanta Thrasher games. The key word, IMO, to making lower level hockey appealing is one that you used -- competitive. As long as that's the case (and it isn't always the case in the low minors) then it's an entertaining game to watch & worth the time investment. So I really hope no one thinks I'm trying to slight the minors in some unfair way.

BUT ...

Those leagues/teams/players are NOT the NHL. They aren't the best players in the world, they aren't the most talented, they aren't the top rung of the ladder. I believe each has a place, but they aren't the same thing.

And that's really all I'm trying to say when it comes to the notion of "replacement players" and all that.

Just needed to vent... The pendulum needs to swing.