NHL talks reaching a breakthrough?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and people will go back to the game from Vancouver to New York and Philidelphia, when the frackus is over.

If a few fans who would rather watch a tractor pull were lost, **** 'em and their franchises. Hockey does not need the Dale Earnhearts of the world. It does need the Bobby Hulls.

You overestimate things. Keith Primeau definitely has the right mindset with this:

Primeau
''I'm extremely concerned,'' said Flyers captain Keith Primeau. ''The biggest thing that disturbs me is everyone's true misunderstanding of the fan base. You hear how certain people believe that the hardcore fan will definitely return, that the damage isn't irreparable.

''I think that's a huge miscalculation or judgment in error of who and what your fan base is. That, I think, is going to alarm a lot of people when the doors are re-opened.''

You are closing your eyes and putting your head in the sand if you think all will be well with fans in the northern cities. Both sides have pissed off the fan base, and it is not a given that the hard core fans come back. It took them over 10 years in baseball, and even then it may be younger, newer fans, rather than the old timers.

I'd actually say that the attendance in some 'tractor pull' areas (like Dallas and Los Angeles - both which drew more than Edmonton and Calgary in the last THREE years, in numbers as well as % full of home arena [% at least for Calgary... can't find Edmonton numbers]!) may see the fans come back in higher numbers than some northern cities.

[notyoueither]

And you don't have a clue what hockey means up here. Take your baseball, basketball and hand mellon, combine them and add a factor of 2. That is what hockey means up here. There will be butts in the seats. Maybe not as many for game one, but by the end of any season the houses will be rocking. Count on it.

The point, Imran, is that without a decent CBA, NHL hockey is dead outside of 2 or 3 Canadian cities. Hense, I don't give a **** what happens in Tampa, or LA.

Oh, and as far as attendance is concerned, Oilers pulled 17,698 per game and Flames pulled 16,600. That is out of populations of about a million each.

How many people live in LA or Philly?

Give me a break!

[notyoueither]

I want hockey back in Winnipeg and Quebec City. Then we can worry about sunshine states. But it will have to be by rules where the heart of hockey can keep beating.

[Agathon]

NYE is right Imran. The Leafs form a pantheon in Toronto.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And you don't have a clue what hockey means up here. Take your baseball, basketball and hand mellon, combine them and add a factor of 2. That is what hockey means up here. There will be butts in the seats. Maybe not as many for game one, but by the end of any season the houses will be rocking. Count on it.

So Primeau doesn't have a clue about what hockey means up there either?

Please. You are exactly who Primeau is talking about. If the season is totally gone, then his prediction will come true. If they can save it, then it'll be alright.

How many people live in LA or Philly?

LA and Dallas each had over 98% capacity filled of their stadium. Dallas had 99%, which was dissapointing, since they were at 100% for the past 3 years. I thought you were arguing that people don't care about hockey at all down in the 'tractor pull' cities.

The point, Imran, is that without a decent CBA, NHL hockey is dead outside of 2 or 3 Canadian cities.

You make the mistake of thinking that WITH a decent CBA, NHL hockey won't be dead outside of 2 or 3 Canadian cities. The Nordiques were NOT losing money. They just knew they could get more in Denver. That temptation will still be around with a salary cap.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And you don't have a clue what hockey means up here. Take your baseball, basketball and hand mellon, combine them and add a factor of 2. That is what hockey means up here. There will be butts in the seats. Maybe not as many for game one, but by the end of any season the houses will be rocking. Count on it.

So Primeau doesn't have a clue about what hockey means up there either?

Please. You are exactly who Primeau is talking about. If the season is totally gone, then his prediction will come true. If they can save it, then it'll be alright.

The point is it is fine if the whole season washes. Sorry, but I still live up here and I have also lived longer than Primeau, so maybe I might have a jump on the youngster in the debate.

How many people live in LA or Philly?

LA and Dallas each had over 98% capacity filled of their stadium. Dallas had 99%, which was dissapointing, since they were at 100% for the past 3 years. I thought you were arguing that people don't care about hockey at all down in the 'tractor pull' cities.

No, I was saying it doesn't matter what happens to attendance in tractor pull cities after the lockout.

If they love hockey, they will come back. If they don't, they don't deserve a franchise. That goes for Edmonton and Calgary too. If we don't go back, then we can't expect some chump with deep pockets to hold the door open while we have a snit fit

The point, Imran, is that without a decent CBA, NHL hockey is dead outside of 2 or 3 Canadian cities.

You make the mistake of thinking that WITH a decent CBA, NHL hockey won't be dead outside of 2 or 3 Canadian cities. The Nordiques were NOT losing money. They just knew they could get more in Denver. That temptation will still be around with a salary cap.

Go for it! Expand to where Yanks will pay to see the fights, er.. hockey! Just leave the lay of the land open to Quebec City and Winnipeg being viable.

At the moment we are talking about not rolling up the league in Edmonton and Clgary. Ottawa would be next.

You think a season missed is going to sink the Bruins, the Rngers, the Flyers, Hawks, Red Wings, or Islanders?

I doubt it and I doubt any chicken littles who say it is so.

You have to remember, hockey is exciting. It should not be compared with basebal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have to remember, hockey is exciting. It should not be compared with basebal.

Yeah, hockey can't hold baseball's jock strap .

Just leave the lay of the land open to Quebec City and Winnipeg being viable.

At the moment we are talking about not rolling up the league in Edmonton and Clgary. Ottawa would be next.

Then instead of JUST harping on a salary cap, why don't you talk revenue sharing as well?

[notyoueither]

Revenue sharing can be discussed among owners. The CBA has to be settled over the point of the gun with the players.

That's where we are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, the players were talking about revenue sharing, and also it is something that may be of interest with the union, because it could impact player salaries, especially at the top teams (who'd have less money).

A salary cap without revenue sharing is almost next to useless for teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Buffalo, etc.

[notyoueither]

Too bad there already is some revenue sharing without the union having **** all to say about it.

See what I mean? The players do not run the league. The sooner they realise that, the sooner they can put the skates on and play.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A salary cap without revenue sharing is almost next to useless for teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Buffalo, etc.

Glad you're more expert at the situation than the owners of the Oilers. They only have to write the cheques after all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd bet the owners of the Oilers would welcome some real revenue sharing. What's a salary cap really going to do for them? The current salary cap proposals will only affect a handful of teams. The Oilers are apparently losing money hand over fist, where is the money to save the team going to come from with a cap?

Btw, good suggestion, let the owners and only the owners decide what is the for the best of the game (they are the 'experts' after all), because they've been doing such a bang up job... wait, weren't they the ones who kept voting for expansion?

[notyoueither]

They have welcomed it, Imran. they have received cash from the league for the last several seasons. Really, you have to pay more attention.

The cap is so that the constant upwards pressure is removed. If the top 8 teams had to cut their salaries, they wouldn't be coming offering stupid contracts to anyone who came within a sniff of free agency.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, good suggestion, let the owners and only the owners decide what is the for the best of the game (they are the 'experts' after all), because they've been doing such a bang up job... wait, weren't they the ones who kept voting for expansion?

They are also the ones who only recently gathered the balls to fight for a good CBA.

Your point?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They have welcomed it, Imran. they have received cash from the league for the last several seasons. Really, you have to pay more attention.

It's a pittance... that isn't really revenue sharing, just as baseball 'luxury tax' isn't really revenue sharing. And NFL style revenue sharing is needed to secure the health of those teams. Slowing the upwards pressure on salaries will do jack for a team if it is losing incredible gobs of money while being a low payroll team.

They are also the ones who only recently gathered the balls to fight for a good CBA.

Your point?

Just because the owners pay the checks doesn't mean they make the best decisions or are 'experts' in deciding what is best for the sport. The owners are just as guilty (perhaps more!) for the mess the game is in than the players.