Tim Panaccio: Closer to the Cliff

As much as I love this sport and don't want to lose another season, I feel I am pretty close to the point of apathy. During the last lockout, my son was just a baby (born that August), so he was usually in bed by 7 or so, which was right around the time when the games obviously start. I was really hoping beyond hope that they would find a way to salvage the season back then. This time around, my son is 8 and he's playing ice hockey (and baseball in the spring\summer), so his schedule is filling much of that void. Not to mention also having 2 younger daughters as well.

Over the last few football seasons, I have found myself move from wanting to watch the Eagles and looking forward to their games to not even knowing what their schedule is and not caring to watch them. I am starting to feel the same way towards the Flyers due to this lockout and I never thought that would happen. It's a shame.

I have been an NHL fan for 40 years. I have attended close to 1000 NHL games. I have been to games in 15 NHL cities. So I consider myself to be a life long fan.

I have had it with the greed and ego on both sides. I am embarrassed by what has transpired this season. Two greedy sides are slowly strangling the golden goose to death.

I now honestly hope this season is lost and I hope the NHL never again gets to the level of success it had at the end of last season. Both sides deserve to reap what they have sewn by seeing the size of the pie they are fighting over shrink significantly.

The NHL has never been considered on par with the other 'big three' major league sports (NFL, MLB, NBA). What has transpired this year proves they don't ever deserve to be.

can someone please explain to me how anyone benefits from a cancelled season?

"No, what has to happen here is that the "moderate" faction among NHL owners need to stage a coup next Wednesday and force Bettman to give the players a deal they can live with - moreso than the owners can live with."

By "moderate" owners do you mean the rich ones who don't need the lockout? So the richest/most profitable owners should make a deal that screws over the least profitable owners who need to win the lockout negotiations? Then nothing would change and the same teams losing money would go right back to losing money.

What would the point be in getting a deal done just to satisfy the players? If that were the solution why would we have a lockout in the first place? The onus is on both sides here, and a deal needs to be struck for the betterment of the leagues future, not just to save one season.

The owners and the players need to find a way to resolve the leagues financial issues, period. The underlying issue is that if they don't figure it out, teams will eventually fold, season or no season.

What would the point be in getting a deal done just to satisfy the players? If that were the solution why would we have a lockout in the first place? The onus is on both sides here, and a deal needs to be struck for the betterment of the leagues future, not just to save one season.

The owners and the players need to find a way to resolve the leagues financial issues, period. The underlying issue is that if they don't figure it out, teams will eventually fold, season or no season.
- MnGump

That's for the best. Can't make a profit? Fold. That's what real-life businesses do.

I'm in my 50's, so I've seen the WHA, plus the World Football League, and USFL. Because of all the money and power that the pro sports leagues have these days, I didn't think we'd ever see another "rival" league try to start up and complete with the NHL, MLB, NFL, or NBA. Well, if there was ever a time for a bunch of hockey loving billionaires, who have been shut out by the NHL to try a start up, it would be now.

The arrogance of the National Hockey League and it's owners is simply unfathomable. If they think they can cancel another season and have people come back again as has happened in the past, they are nuts. I am about as hard core hockey fan as you can get, and I'm am telling you that I will be done with the NHL. I'll go watch youth hockey, some of the local colleges, AHL, ECHL, etc. to get my fix. I'm probably in the minority that I was always okay with Gary Bettman, but now, if I saw him on the street, I would have a hard time not punching him in the face.

That's for the best. Can't make a profit? Fold. That's what real-life businesses do.
- Flyskippy

You are exactly right. This work stoppage in particular is about a small group of teams. If you can't figure out a way to make money in your market, move or fold. Stop penalizing the markets that support their teams.

not caring to watch them. I am starting to feel the same way towards the Flyers.
- goodfela

Weird, I've always felt that way about the Flyers.

That's for the best. Can't make a profit? Fold. That's what real-life businesses do.
- Flyskippy

Yep, I bet every single NHL owner is Conservative/Republican but when it comes to their struggling teams, they're suddenly Obama lovers with their hands out Oliver Twist style asking to please have some more.

Weird, I've always felt that way about the Flyers.
- tmlfan69

Those out there who only watch the playoffs wouldn't even know the Leafs existed!

Those out there who only watch the playoffs wouldn't even know the Leafs existed!
- NJFlyer42

What the hell? Now you're just making up words.

What the hell? Now you're just making up words.
- tmlfan69

No, really, there's another season after the 82 games where the top 16 play in a tournament.

can someone please explain to me how anyone benefits from a cancelled season?
- Dkos

Dude when you find out let me know.... This whole thing makes me sick

can someone please explain to me how anyone benefits from a cancelled season?
- Dkos

No one benefits. The players would lose an entire year of salary, which not many will be able to fully recoup playing overseas. The bigger market clubs who are profitable will forfeit a years worth of profits, and that doesn't even count future profits that will be lost because of damage to the brand. And the smaller market clubs in non-traditional markets, will greatly damage their long-term viability as the higher pecentage of casual fans in those markets would likely turn away from the game in droves. Cancelling the season would be against everybody's financial interest, and would effectively amount to a murder/suicide for the league and the NHLPA.

I sincerely hope the entire season is cancelled this year, and next year. I hope the NHL falls to pre 2004-5 status and that the minor market teams that are forcing the major market teams to fight for more money to share with them go up in flames. There isn't a 1% chance we have a season this year. Let's all just stop paying attention and wasting our time. RIP NHL

What the hell? Now you're just making up words.
- tmlfan69

Also, awesome avatar.

What the hell? Now you're just making up words.
- tmlfan69

Also, awesome avatar.
- Flyskippy

Yes, excellent game on Atari. Hat Trick at the arcade and then Nintendo's bland-name Ice Hockey, before Blades of Steel... all great games before the much better games came out.

What would the point be in getting a deal done just to satisfy the players? If that were the solution why would we have a lockout in the first place? The onus is on both sides here, and a deal needs to be struck for the betterment of the leagues future, not just to save one season.

The owners and the players need to find a way to resolve the leagues financial issues, period. The underlying issue is that if they don't figure it out, teams will eventually fold, season or no season.
- MnGump

If the NHLPA immediately accepted the NHL's proposal, it still wouldn't solve the NHL's financial troubles as explained by Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...key-team-worth-1-billion/

Some teams would be helped, quite a bit, but several teams in financial trouble would need to make it to the conference final to sustain, even under the NHL's proposed plan.

So why would owners propose a deal that doesn't resolve their own, repeatedly stated, financial problems? Kind of makes me think that the main reason for the lockout isn't financial sustainability for 30 teams, but a short sighted cash grab...kind of like how expansion has been handled for the past 20 years or so.

Two teams in Florida? Sure! One in the desert? Absolutely. Another team in the Los Angeles market? Giddyap! So long as the proposed owner doesn't argue about giving us a certified check for the expansion fee up front.

Yes, excellent game on Atari. Hat Trick at the arcade and then Nintendo's bland-name Ice Hockey, before Blades of Steel... all great games before the much better games came out.
- Cloverfield

I just love the old school stuff. I actually made a video a couple of years back that kinda does a little history of hockey video games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59eqvjDR_A0

If the NHLPA immediately accepted the NHL's proposal, it still wouldn't solve the NHL's financial troubles as explained by Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...key-team-worth-1-billion/

Some teams would be helped, quite a bit, but several teams in financial trouble would need to make it to the conference final to sustain, even under the NHL's proposed plan.

So why would owners propose a deal that doesn't resolve their own, repeatedly stated, financial problems? Kind of makes me think that the main reason for the lockout isn't financial sustainability for 30 teams, but a short sighted cash grab...kind of like how expansion has been handled for the past 20 years or so.

Two teams in Florida? Sure! One in the desert? Absolutely. Another team in the Los Angeles market? Giddyap! So long as the proposed owner doesn't argue about giving us a certified check for the expansion fee up front.
- Jsaquella

The first issue is that Forbes is just a guesstimate. I have no doubt that there are some teams struggling. The biggest single issue in my opinion, is that the have Owners, aren't willing to help the have not Owners. And so they look to take from the players to try and better the financial picture of some of the teams in the League. The Owners made their own bed. They need to look within to fix it. Not just try to take from the players to fix it.

The first issue is that Forbes is just a guesstimate. I have no doubt that there are some teams struggling. The biggest single issue in my opinion, is that the have Owners, aren't willing to help the have not Owners. And so they look to take from the players to try and better the financial picture of some of the teams in the League. The Owners made their own bed. They need to look within to fix it. Not just try to take from the players to fix it.
- MJL

I agree with your sentiment, but I think what you fail to see is that a long term solution to make the entire league solvent is going to require both sides to give a little, hence the term collective bargaining agreement. Once again you are making out like the players have no responsibility in this dilemma other than to hold on to their piece of the pie and stay status quo. I hate to tell ya, but that's not how a CBA works. If as many teams are losing money as has been reported, there is no other way for the league to solve the financial issues that have been set in motion by the previous CBA without lowering players cut. The players simply have to give up some of their piece of the pie. The make whole offer by the owners is about the fairest deal the players are going to get. Yet the players still want to control the entire process by dictating contract terms. At this point the players are cutting their own throats, whether the season is canceled or they foolishly choose decertifiaction, either scenario is a lose/lose for the players.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think what you fail to see is that a long term solution to make the entire league solvent is going to require both sides to give a little, hence the term collective bargaining agreement. Once again you are making out like the players have no responsibility in this dilemma other than to hold on to their piece of the pie and stay status quo. I hate to tell ya, but that's not how a CBA works. If as many teams are losing money as has been reported, there is no other way for the league to solve the financial issues that have been set in motion by the previous CBA without lowering players cut. The players simply have to give up some of their piece of the pie. The make whole offer by the owners is about the fairest deal the players are going to get. Yet the players still want to control the entire process by dictating contract terms. At this point the players are cutting their own throats, whether the season is canceled or they foolishly choose decertifiaction, either scenario is a lose/lose for the players.
- MnGump

This is about the 3rd time you've labeled my opinion inaccurately. I have stated umpteen times repeatedly, that I'm in favor of the players going to from 57% to 50%. And I've said repeatedly that 50/50 is fair. In fact that principal is one of the 3 aspects that I base my entire opinion on the lockout on. So either you aren't paying attention, or you are practicing selective memory.
I hate to tell you, but ask anyone on the Flyers threads what poster is the most well educated on the CBA, and understands it the best. See what answer you get.
What you fail to see based on your comment that the players want to control the entire process. Is that it is the exact opposite of that. The League has time and again placed parameters on what they will discuss or negotiate. And with their take it or leave it negotiating posture. Why should the players give anything up without something in return? Because I'll remind you of your comment that that's not how a CBA works! So if your going to go around telling people things like that. Be accurate in putting words in their mouths. And secondly, practice what you preach!
And the Owner's are cutting their own throats also. To the tune of 10-20M a day. Not to mention the long term fallout from the lockout that might occur.