Lockout/CBA Discussion Thread

[ImTellinTim]

Well said there, pietasterp. That pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue.

The Green Bay Packers use the correct and most fair model. When they wish to raise capital, they ask their fans to contribute directly. It wouldn't work everywhere, but it is the most fair.

[skydog71]

I know every city has unique circumstances, but downtown Nashville was an absolute dump 20 years ago. I won't go into the whole revitalization story, but at the time, you had to go to an adjacent county to find a concert venue that could accommodate more than 10,000 people. Fast forward to today, and Bridgestone Arena is the 8th busiest arena in North America. Its effect on revitalizing the downtown area can not be overstated. If the city has to spend a little money to subsidize the anchor tenant's operations (ie - Predators), it's money well spent. It makes me furious when a local journalist writes a hit piece talking about how much the Predators are costing the city. They clearly weren't here 20 years ago when there wasn't anything downtown except abandoned buildings.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by ImTellinTim

Well said there, pietasterp. That pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue. The Green Bay Packers use the correct and most fair model. When they wish to raise capital, they ask their fans to contribute directly. It wouldn't work everywhere, but it is the most fair.

That only works in football. Hard to get only 15-20k fans to significantly contribute to an arena.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by skydog71

I know every city has unique circumstances, but downtown Nashville was an absolute dump 20 years ago. I won't go into the whole revitalization story, but at the time, you had to go to an adjacent county to find a concert venue that could accommodate more than 10,000 people. Fast forward to today, and Bridgestone Arena is the 8th busiest arena in North America. Its effect on revitalizing the downtown area can not be overstated. If the city has to spend a little money to subsidize the anchor tenant's operations (ie - Predators), it's money well spent. It makes me furious when a local journalist writes a hit piece talking about how much the Predators are costing the city. They clearly weren't here 20 years ago when there wasn't anything downtown except abandoned buildings.

Good point; each city and each circumstance is unique. There's no way to make blanket statements one way or the other. It's even harder when you have non-quantifiable factors like emotions come into play; it's easy for me to say one thing, but my dollars over the years have said something different....

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

That only works in football. Hard to get only 15-20k fans to significantly contribute to an arena.

Very true. And in places as unique as Green Bay, WI.

[ImTellinTim]

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

Very true. And in places as unique as Green Bay, WI.

All that money certainly isn't coming from Green Bay. Like I said, I'm not saying that it would always work, but there are certain situations where it would, and it isn't tried.

[mgoblue]

First off, I'm glad hockey will be back, and a 48 game season will be awesome drama.

Big question though, can someone help me understand if we're just going to lose another season in 5 years (or whenever this expires)?

I thought the last lockout was supposed to fix hockey, but now the owners just cry again (usually their own wasteful spending and inability to control themselves).

How is this agreement any different than the last one that was supposed to be the amazing solution to fix the NHL's financials? I purely expect the owners to cry again next time that they're losing money, since it seems to work for them every time so far....

So tired of hearing the owners whine, and when they get their way they still whine.

Am I off the mark?

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by mgoblue

First off, I'm glad hockey will be back, and a 48 game season will be awesome drama. Big question though, can someone help me understand if we're just going to lose another season in 5 years (or whenever this expires)? I thought the last lockout was supposed to fix hockey, but now the owners just cry again (usually their own wasteful spending and inability to control themselves). How is this agreement any different than the last one that was supposed to be the amazing solution to fix the NHL's financials? I purely expect the owners to cry again next time that they're losing money, since it seems to work for them every time so far.... So tired of hearing the owners whine, and when they get their way they still whine. Am I off the mark?

No, you're not off the mark. There will likely be another lockout in 8-10 years. The league's main problem is the revenue disparity between traditional and non-traditional markets. The lockout that just ended will likely exacerbate those problems.

[ImTellinTim]

If they would just listen to me and my plan to move and/or disband any teams south of an extended Mason-Dixon Line excluding California, that would be a good start. They have NASCAR and college football, they'll be OK.