Leafs should fear a new CBA

Read this 3 times, still cant figure out what the h__l they are talking about.

Moving on.......

Same story they had yesterday with a different title and a different picture.

"seemingly struggling Toronto Maple Leafs"!! Has the Toronto Sun been watching a different sport all these years and just noticed?

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 08:59 AM ET  09.03 by Stranger

Same story they had yesterday with a different title and a different picture.

Not that it will make any difference whatsoever in the Leafs level of talent or play as long as Burke is around.

So what they are saying is that nothing can help the Maple Leafs. We knew that already.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 09:23 AM ET  09.03 by Center Ice

"seemingly struggling Toronto Maple Leafs"!! Has the Toronto Sun been watching a different sport all these years and just noticed?

Agreed. "Seemingly?" hahahahaha

Toronto Sun is the worse piece of rag on the planet.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 08:59 AM ET  09.03 by Stranger

Same story they had yesterday with a different title and a different picture.

Glad you agree. I thought I was just seeing things.

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 08:37 AM ET  09.03 by BGDave

Read this 3 times, still cant figure out what the h__l they are talking about.Moving on.......

10 clubs outta 30 make money and TO is 1 of them...thats why they fear a lock out...but the other 20 clubs would actually save money if theres a lock out.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:51 AM ET  09.03 by bostongm

10 clubs outta 30 make money and TO is 1 of them...thats why they fear a lock out...but the other 20 clubs would actually save money if theres a lock out.

I think....it is pretty confusing.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 10:39 AM ET  09.03 by Slapshot

Glad you agree. I thought I was just seeing things.

Maybe a little clearer. The pics I mean. The rest is Muddled Mayhem

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:51 AM ET  09.03 by bostongm

10 clubs outta 30 make money and TO is 1 of them...thats why they fear a lock out...but the other 20 clubs would actually save money if theres a lock out.

I don't know the number of the profitable clubs, but you're probably right. Even more unfortunate is the fact that a lot of those perpetually money losing clubs would probably like to bale out now and find a buyer and give their problems to another group. Buyers are hard to find now though......(see Glendale) and there are only a few spots that make sense to move a franchise. Well, I can't wait till tomorrow's thread about the Leaf's and a new CBA. New picture I'm sure.

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 11:17 AM ET  09.03 by Slapshot

I don't know the number of the profitable clubs, but you're probably right. Even more unfortunate is the fact that a lot of those perpetually money losing clubs would probably like to bale out now and find a buyer and give their problems to another group. Buyers are hard to find now though......(see Glendale) and there are only a few spots that make sense to move a franchise. Well, I can't wait till tomorrow's thread about the Leaf's and a new CBA. New picture I'm sure.

There would be no problem finding a buyer in Southern Ontario. If the PA wanted more support from the fans in this CBA negotiioation one of their demands should be that a team be there in the next three years. I would like to see how Bettman would react if that was on the table.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 11:33 AM ET  09.03 by whale2

There would be no problem finding a buyer in Southern Ontario. If the PA wanted more support from the fans in this CBA negotiioation one of their demands should be that a team be there in the next three years. I would like to see how Bettman would react if that was on the table.

I agree with your point and that spot makes perfect sense. Quebec too. One of the reasons that ownership can hold on to teams with operating losses for a long time is the ever-rising value of franchises. That's been especially true of the NFL and MLB for the last 20 years or so. In hockey however the value of the franchises has been relatively stagnant for a while now. There are exceptions but even the original six and a few others with sharply rising values are not going through the roof like the NFL as an example.

As a negotiating tool.............I'm not sure. There are property rights to be onsidered if an owner doesn't want to sell or move for whatever reason.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 11:59 AM ET  09.03 by Slapshot

I agree with your point and that spot makes perfect sense. Quebec too. One of the reasons that ownership can hold on to teams with operating losses for a long time is the ever-rising value of franchises. That's been especially true of the NFL and MLB for the last 20 years or so. In hockey however the value of the franchises has been relatively stagnant for a while now. There are exceptions but even the original six and a few others with sharply rising values are not going through the roof like the NFL as an example.As a negotiating tool.............I'm not sure. There are property rights to be onsidered if an owner doesn't want to sell or move for whatever reason.

I think a team will be in Quebec next season. Probably Pheonix with an outside chance the Islanders. i understand the leagues view that teams moving or flat out folding affect their franchise values but I think that theory has long past.

It might not fly in negotiations but in the poll of public opinion it would get the fans on the players side.
BTW Slappy I hate it when you disagree with me :-)

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 01:13 PM ET  09.03 by whale2

I think a team will be in Quebec next season. Probably Pheonix with an outside chance the Islanders. i understand the leagues view that teams moving or flat out folding affect their franchise values but I think that theory has long past.It might not fly in negotiations but in the poll of public opinion it would get the fans on the players side. BTW Slappy I hate it when you disagree with me :-)

LMAO! That usually means I'm wrong! :-)

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:51 AM ET  09.03 by bostongm

10 clubs outta 30 make money and TO is 1 of them...thats why they fear a lock out...but the other 20 clubs would actually save money if theres a lock out.

A heeluva lot more than 10 around 20 but Toronto is the big loser here their owners Bell(TSN) and Rogers(Sportsnet) will have no scheduling to entice the masses and will go the ESPN2 mode of .....and today in the BMX motocross 12 year old division there has been a late scratch seems the odds-on favorite has been grounded for a month due to an incident at school and now for an exclusive we go to our intrepid reporter for an update

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 01:26 PM ET  09.03 by Slapshot

LMAO! That usually means I'm wrong! :-)

LOL...If there was ever a scenario when both people are wrong it would be us.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 01:13 PM ET  09.03 by whale2

I think a team will be in Quebec next season. Probably Pheonix with an outside chance the Islanders. i understand the leagues view that teams moving or flat out folding affect their franchise values but I think that theory has long past.It might not fly in negotiations but in the poll of public opinion it would get the fans on the players side. BTW Slappy I hate it when you disagree with me :-)

Due to the fact that it'll take 2 seasons to build an arena there and the fact no one knows when they'll start the season there will definitely be no team movement this season (don't forget the Isles and Coyotes aren't losing money during a lockout and as long as Glendale keeps throwing money at the Coyotes they'll stay) Now next year all bets are off

The sad thing about this lockout is after we finally get an agreement and either miss half the season, or possibly another season, we will have these same problems 5-7 years from now when the new CBA is up. You will hear the same markets having financial trouble, and the same big maket teams making $$$ just like we have heard for the past 20 years.

Anyone notice there were 0 lockouts before the NHL expanded and Bettman was the commissioner? When the league had 21 teams, I'm sure there were a few teams losing money, but most of the teams were good hockey markets that could support a team. Of course nothing will ever be perfect, so you will never run a league were 100% of the markets are thriving. But now we have almost half the league in the red, whereas 20 years ago it was probably like 10% of the league.