probably written by AI
- 2Real

I agree. Great city.
- Dkos

Ummm I’ve been to both cities on multiple occasions. I will say the women in Philly 👍🏻👍🏻 the women in Chicago….. I’ll just say I was a little surprised and disappointed actually

Silly topic but: Have you been to the area? It was startling for me to go down there (my wife was doing her Masters) and see how much skewed the ratio was in the opposite direction.

Also, in Manhattan a hockey player is nothing too special. The place is crawling with hotshots. In Raleigh/Chapel Hill there are tens of thousands of young women from 3 large universities and a pro sports star would have easy pickings.

.
- PT21

Agreed

No, Iverson
- Big_E_88

😝

Thank you… so you actually agree with ME… that in order for reduction in games players would take pay cut because the revenue split is 50/50.

They whole debate wasn’t about that it was mjl stating league wouldn’t cut games because they wouldn’t be able to maintain financial stability. WHICH IS WRONG as you also stated player cost would go down.

Yes they’d make less profits for themselves but not be able to maintain financial stability is ignorant obtuse by mjl not realizing other cost would have to go down to. It’s a wash.
- Stayin alive

LMAO. No, he doesn't agree with you. He agreed with me. He posted in reply to my post that he agrees with me. That should've been your first clue!


Here is what else your pee brain can't comprehend. What revenue would be decreased without a corresponding reduction in costs?

I should say you can't possibly be this stupid but obviously you are. A lockout is the league locking out the players and ceasing to play. Not the same as the players voluntarily agreeing to a reduction in salary in a negotiation.

My statement was 100% correct and you're clueless. Again. You've failed to prove that my statement was wrong.
- MJL

Lmao thank you for proving just how stupid you actually are. Hey moron when the cba coming out of lockout was signed. BY THE PLAYERS. What happened to the salaries of the players under contract? WHAT DID THE PLAYERS AGREE TO DO TO SIGN THE CBA? oh yeah the AGREED TO TAKE PLAYER CUTS IN THOSE SALRIES!!!!

You sir are WRONG AS USUAL.

so after you go look that up please tell me how the players didn’t or wouldn’t ever agree to take a pay cut moron.

LMAO. No, he doesn't agree with you. He agreed with me. He posted in reply to my post that he agrees with me. That should've been your first clue!


Here is what else your pee brain can't comprehend. What revenue would be decreased without a corresponding reduction in costs?
- MJL

always with the name calling, practice what you preach cliff you pos.

LMAO. No, he doesn't agree with you. He agreed with me. He posted in reply to my post that he agrees with me. That should've been your first clue!


Here is what else your pee brain can't comprehend. What revenue would be decreased without a corresponding reduction in costs?
- MJL

Hey dumbass what’s the split between 82 game season and for example 70 game season dumbass?

Let me try to explain it’s 50/50

You stated team teams wouldn’t be “financially stable” if games reduced. WRONG. the split would be the same as OBVIOUSLY players would still have to be 50/50 split.

What if they went from 82 games to 80. Would teams not be financially stable? You’re a tool.

Your blanket statement especially without an opinion was wrong. Please oh wise one explain how teams wouldn’t be financially stable is games reduced.

Under your statements if league reduced 1 game teams would be financially unstable. Sure bud. Yep. Take 1 game away and a
Almost every team would fold.


Moron

Lmao thank you for proving just how stupid you actually are. Hey moron when the cba coming out of lockout was signed. BY THE PLAYERS. What happened to the salaries of the players under contract? WHAT DID THE PLAYERS AGREE TO DO TO SIGN THE CBA? oh yeah the AGREED TO TAKE PLAYER CUTS IN THOSE SALRIES!!!!

You sir are WRONG AS USUAL.

so after you go look that up please tell me how the players didn’t or wouldn’t ever agree to take a pay cut moron.
- Stayin alive

You're unbelievably stupid. The NHL players before the installation of the salary cap, were getting upwards of 70% of the revenue. That was unsustainable. That led to a lockout. After a lengthy lockout, the players and league agreed in a collective bargaining agreement to agree on a 50/50 split. That's fair and reasonable. Since that happened, you somehow equate that one, the players agreeing to another significant reduction in salary, on top of already losing money to escrow, will automatically agree to another salary cut. That is not intelligent. Secondly, I have not made the statement that the players have never agreed to a reduction in salary. Again, you prove that you can't read.

Nothing you posted there proves me to be wrong that the league can't afford to reduce the number of regular season games.

Hey dumbass what’s the split between 82 game season and for example 70 game season dumbass?

Let me try to explain it’s 50/50

You stated team teams wouldn’t be “financially stable” if games reduced. WRONG. the split would be the same as OBVIOUSLY players would still have to be 50/50 split.

What if they went from 82 games to 80. Would teams not be financially stable? You’re a tool.

Your blanket statement especially without an opinion was wrong. Please oh wise one explain how teams wouldn’t be financially stable is games reduced.

Under your statements if league reduced 1 game teams would be financially unstable. Sure bud. Yep. Take 1 game away and a
Almost every team would fold.


Moron
- Stayin alive

Yea, that's what were talking about, a one game reduction. LOL When you know you suggested reducing it to 70. You're not making a good faith effort here.

Keep on embarrassing yourself.

You glossed over the question. If the league reduces the number of regular season games. What revenue would be decreased without a corresponding reduction in costs?

You failed to grasp the intent of the statement. By all means though, keep making yourself look like an ass.
- MJL

When was the last you took a shower ?

When was the last you took a shower ?
- Angus4444

waterproof keyboard

It’s like, dude, it’s 2024

There are ziploc bags you can put your phone in to keep this party going

There was an article in the Globe and Mail recently pointing out that the average viewership of the women's NCAA later games (final 4 I think is what they meant) is 3 times the average Stanley Cup Final viwership (in the US at least).

Last year, college football and college basketball regular season (not March madness/bowl games) exceeded NHL viewership. MLS was rising fast and almost even. This year it will almost certainly exceed NHL. AFter the forthcoming world cup, it will be way ahead.

Even worse, NHL audience is old like us. Advertisers like people below 35ish because they spend more/are more swayed by advertising. Hockey is way down in that category.

Yea, that's what were talking about, a one game reduction. LOL When you know you suggested reducing it to 70. You're not making a good faith effort here.

Keep on embarrassing yourself.

You glossed over the question. If the league reduces the number of regular season games. What revenue would be decreased without a corresponding reduction in costs?
- MJL[/ MJL








Yesterday @ 7:53 AM ET
I hate it. The better option is to go back and allow ties. What was wrong with ties? Soccer has them and no one complains. I also think the league has to reduce the number of regular season games, start the season October 1 and end March 31, thus April and May is hockey madness. Let the NBA have June. The fact that the NHL season bleeds into June is a joke.
- jd250



It would be impossible for the NHL to reduce the number of games. They would not survive financially.

I’d this statement by you factually correct yes or no? “ it IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE LEAGUE TO REDUCE GAMES”.
“THE LEAGUE WOULD NOT SURVIVE FINANCIALLY”

So the league folds if they reduce 1 game? Or 2 games?

YOU ARE WRONG

You're unbelievably stupid. The NHL players before the installation of the salary cap, were getting upwards of 70% of the revenue. That was unsustainable. That led to a lockout. After a lengthy lockout, the players and league agreed in a collective bargaining agreement to agree on a 50/50 split. That's fair and reasonable. Since that happened, you somehow equate that one, the players agreeing to another significant reduction in salary, on top of already losing money to escrow, will automatically agree to another salary cut. That is not intelligent. Secondly, I have not made the statement that the players have never agreed to a reduction in salary. Again, you prove that you can't read.

Nothing you posted there proves me to be wrong that the league can't afford to reduce the number of regular season games.
- MJL

You can try to twist all you want. What the reasons for lockout don’t matter. Never debated. Please explain again how if league reduced ANY game because it would be impossible because the league would not be financially able to survive.

All the while forgetting league survived during Covid without biggest revenue driver. Attendance but surely impossible to survive reducing even 1 game. Laughable

Yea, that's what were talking about, a one game reduction. LOL When you know you suggested reducing it to 70. You're not making a good faith effort here.

Keep on embarrassing yourself.

You glossed over the question. If the league reduces the number of regular season games. What revenue would be decreased without a corresponding reduction in costs?
- MJL

Hey dumbass I never said league revenue wouldn’t be decreased. I’m not the one that said league would not be financially sustainable. You did. What you fail to realize is cost would go down too. I’ll help you because you’re too dumb to understand.


You meant to say owners PROFITS. Would go down and they don’t want that. They’d survive just fine with reduction in games. But profits would be lower. That’s all plain and simple

You can try to twist all you want. What the reasons for lockout don’t matter. Never debated. Please explain again how if league reduced ANY game because it would be impossible because the league would not be financially able to survive.

All the while forgetting league survived during Covid without biggest revenue driver. Attendance but surely impossible to survive reducing even 1 game. Laughable
- Stayin alive

COVID was a situation that happened for one season. A reduction to 70 games would affect far more than one season. The league lost millions and the players are just getting to paying back the escrow they owe the owners.

Hey dumbass I never said league revenue wouldn’t be decreased. I’m not the one that said league would not be financially sustainable. You did. What you fail to realize is cost would go down too. I’ll help you because you’re too dumb to understand.


You meant to say owners PROFITS. Would go down and they don’t want that. They’d survive just fine with reduction in games. But profits would be lower. That’s all plain and simple
- Stayin alive

What revenue would be decreased without a corresponding cost reduction associate with with it? Is it too difficult for you to understand? LOL

I guess you're not intelligent enough to understand that when you say the league would not be financially sustainable, you're talking about profits. LOL

Here is the deal. Even if the players salaries were reduced commensurate with the number of games reduced. It would not cancel out the lost revenue and most importantly, profit. They would lose massive amounts of money. From the TV revenue, which would be reduced and from revenue and profit lost from the hundreds of games not played. Concession revenue, parking revenue, advertising revenue. It would be a disaster for the league and many franchises would be in serious trouble. It's not going to happen. It cant happen. In fact the league would like to increase the number of games played. Not decrease. That is the reality.

You can continue to go on all the spastic and juvenile drunken rants you want and call me any name you want to. This conversation is over and as usual, you don't have the first clue. End of story.

Well Torts is much more well known than that little geeky turd. I mean, I'm a hockey geek and I've never heard of him, so what does his opinion matter?
- Phillywhiteout

keep squealing, you pig

Yup.

He doesn't have the most talented bunch, never has the best goalies, yet they always seem to go deep because they play such an effective low-event style.

I'd say the Flyers should emulate Carolina but they really don't have to since they aren't working with the same budget and market constraints. The fact that they're not even close to the Canes despite having every advantage in the books is really sad and speaks to how badly they've been managed going back to the Clarke years.
- Tomahawk

and they were missing Svech for their last run

and they were missing Svech for their last run
- THE BLACK HAND

Guentzel is going to really help them too.

You can’t be this obtuse. The players have in past had salaries reduced. Look at lockout. If the league went to say 70 games the players would have to agree under the cba and surely their salary would be reduced from an 82 game average to 70. Or whatever game total. It’s apple and oranges.

You certainly were wrong. You said league COULDNT reduce games because teams wouldn’t be financially blah blah blah.

Wrong. The payroll and cap would obviously go down.

The split is 50/50 on revenue between owners players. Less games less revenue less cap.

Obviously players would have to agree to it.

Your statement was wrong
- Stayin alive

Obviously, they wouldn't.

Hypothetically because league would have to have consent to lower games. In this scenario 70 games. If players AGREED to lower games under cba obviously they’d have to agree to the cut to reflect that.

Would players agree to less games? Actually maybe. Many players complain now about wear on body from schedule.
- Stayin alive

pointless argument..the players will never agree to less games or having their pay cut because of it.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail recently pointing out that the average viewership of the women's NCAA later games (final 4 I think is what they meant) is 3 times the average Stanley Cup Final viwership (in the US at least).

Last year, college football and college basketball regular season (not March madness/bowl games) exceeded NHL viewership. MLS was rising fast and almost even. This year it will almost certainly exceed NHL. AFter the forthcoming world cup, it will be way ahead.

Even worse, NHL audience is old like us. Advertisers like people below 35ish because they spend more/are more swayed by advertising. Hockey is way down in that category.
- PT21

Because the NHL is a Mickey MOuse league, horrible leadership, too many teams causing the dilution of its top talent, which they dont market correctly. A horrendous TV deal and choking of the salary cap to allow teams flexibility to form formidable teams

https://www.hockeyfeed.com/nhl-news/reports-that-sean-couturier-s-nhl-career-may-be-over?fbclid=IwAR2r3Bmp7Fn59y2N6eyHpBGIjLVsOCeYpRG6QtiPg-VXZYltyBtm1bNNrn4_aem_ATmtCXfQVE6SaCkrw4tC_ygcgrd2C4KmJND7-nkgcvx7NeecL-QrtFqgC1MWeveWkJ8

Any truth to this?
- roenick97

Well Ellis started out as day to day. Didn’t RR start out that way too? Atkinson before? So given the history it’s possible, but he prolly sprained his shoulder or something like that and will be out a week or so I’d speculate.