even if someone said it wasn't because of the chicken we'd still blame you and the chicken post. it's just who we are and what we do. so if it makes you fEEl any better, it wouldn't change anything anyway!
- kicksave856

see, this is why I'd like a clear explanation. maybe it wasn't because of the chicken, you know... pretty funny if it is though because it stayed there the whole god damn time before braiden unlocked the thread and erased the "potentially illegal" post lol
- Pat1993

iillegal twerking chicken

what a year it has been

i'm more of a point out the good blogger than point at the bad bloggers guy *halo shines*. i'm just such a great guy. really nice. real nice guy. so nice.
- kicksave856

and you have a nice ass as well

- Pat1993

and you have a nice ass as well
- deadpoulet

aw, thanks!

The money lost is the potential revenue.
- mr.peanut

what revenues? it says how much they will lose if they play.

The money lost is the potential revenue.
- mr.peanut

he has a point though, if it "costs" NHL owners $2.7 billion to play next season, that cost would logically be avoided if they don't play... they wouldn't be making the estimated 1.8 billion in revenue, but they wouldn't be digging themselves in a hole either

iillegal twerking chicken

what a year it has been
- deadpoulet

seriously

what revenues? it says how much they will lose if they play.
- deadpoulet

I'm thinking maybe the league is also considering the fact that they need to play games to keep the fans' engagement level high enough in certain markets. perhaps having no games at all for too long would make some people lose interest, especially in cities where hockey already isn't that popular

what revenues? it says how much they will lose if they play.
- deadpoulet

Yes. It is lost revenue if they are not playing.

That it what they will lose

he has a point though, if it "costs" NHL owners $2.7 billion to play next season, that cost would logically be avoided if they don't play... they wouldn't be making the estimated 1.8 billion in revenue, but they wouldn't be digging themselves in a hole either
- Pat1993

voila.

Why would they care about 1.8 if they gonna lose 2.7? Might as well not play the season and not spending that money.

I can get the argument of keeping the brand alive, etc, but some teams might not survive this at the end.

he has a point though, if it "costs" NHL owners $2.7 billion to play next season, that cost would logically be avoided if they don't play... they wouldn't be making the estimated 1.8 billion in revenue, but they wouldn't be digging themselves in a hole either
- Pat1993

There are sunk costs.... building/arena costs, non-hockey player costs (ie: scouts, etc...), maybe even have to pay back some sponsors (ie: contracts they signed or building naming rights), broadcaster rights, etc...

There are a lot of sunk costs, the question is, how much vs the loss playing a season to empty seats?

Add on top of that, a year without hockey is just not good for the sport, itself.

Regardless, the NHL needs to make a decision soon, as they want to likely be done before the "supposed" start of the Olympics.

Yes. It is lost revenue if they are not playing.

That it what they will lose
- mr.peanut

I think your're missing the point totally here. They will lose way more by playing the season.

Not only they would play the season without making a profit, they would dig a huge hole in their pockets.

voila.

Why would they care about 1.8 if they gonna lose 2.7? Might as well not play the season and not spending that money.

I can get the argument of keeping the brand alive, etc, but some teams might not survive this at the end.
- deadpoulet

meh. teams are billionaire' toys. losing millions, they won't like, but they won't go belly up because of it.

There are sunk costs.... building/arena costs, non-hockey player costs (ie: scouts, etc...), maybe even have to pay back some sponsors (ie: contracts they signed or building naming rights), broadcaster rights, etc...

There are a lot of sunk costs, the question is, how much vs the loss playing a season to empty seats?

Add on top of that, a year without hockey is just not good for the sport, itself.

Regardless, the NHL needs to make a decision soon, as they want to likely be done before the "supposed" start of the Olympics.
- Mashadar

great point with those sunk costs. I was under the impression there were other losses associated with not playing but I just wasn't sure what they could be.

meh. teams are billionaire' toys. losing millions, they won't like, but they won't go belly up because of it.
- fidopro

tell that to melnyk

tell that to melnyk
- deadpoulet

wouldn't mind if he sold the team to Quebec lol

tell that to melnyk
- deadpoulet

he's cheap. but still worth over a billion.

I think your're missing the point totally here. They will lose way more by playing the season.

Not only they would play the season without making a profit, they would dig a huge hole in their pockets.
- deadpoulet

i don't think so

wouldn't mind if he sold the team to Quebec lol
- Pat1993

no no

no no
- mr.peanut

one boring team in Ontario is plenty enough

i don't think so
- mr.peanut

I'm sure of it.

You're not too good at maths.

I'm sure of it.

You're not too good at maths.
- deadpoulet

where's obie and his special calculator when you need him

where's obie and his special calculator when you need him
- Pat1993

where's obie and his special calculator when you need him
- Pat1993

His 7 fingers and 9 toes?