JUMBLED NOTES

The business of hockey is underway in Europe and about to begin in junior hockey. The now defunct NHL was a terrific league, but there’s plenty of hockey straight ahead.

A few notes for Friday morning:

  • Martin Gernat has an “upper body” injury and it has slowed him in training camp. Travis Ewanyk and Mitchell Moroz are looking good so far, the OK play the Rebels in Lacombe tonight and then begin the regular season next week.
  • Oscar Klefbom played 12:48 (6th most among D) in Farjestads 3-2 OT loss yesterday as the SEL season got underway. He had a shot, a hit and was +1 in the contest. Twitter reports from eyewitnesses suggested he was effective.

  • Rob Schremp is 4 games into his KHL career and has no points. With all those locked out Russians looking for work, I imagine Robbie will have a tough time getting minutes if he can’t post crooked numbers.
  • Linus Omark may have taken time to figure out the physical part of the game, but he appears to be making up for lost time. In his debut for Zug, he was apparently unimpressive save for TEN minutes in penalties. Crazy. google translate gives us the story “Tricks with the puck remain but both he and his counterpart Zuger spectacle Omark guilty. Acquaintance with these blames Rüfenachts temperament, Omark times arrived shortly face. His talent suggests the transfer coup of only gradual and short.” Shortly face. Not bad, not bad.
  • NHL waivers has a large list of former Oiler prospects. Coincidence?

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.

49 Responses to "JUMBLED NOTES"

  1. Chunklets says:

    Rob Schremp is 4 games into his KHL career and has no points. With all those locked out Russians looking for work, I imagine Robbie will have a tough time getting minutes if he can’t post crooked numbers.

    Ah, but he scored the shootout winner that got Dinamo Riga their only two points of the season so far. Typical Schremp, already dividing the fanbase! :)

  2. Dalton says:

    “Tricks with the puck remain but both he and his counterpart Zuger spectacle Omark guilty. Acquaintance with these blames Rüfenachts temperament, Omark times arrived shortly face. His talent suggests the transfer coup of only gradual and short.”

    My translation:

    “Omark, the laughing stock of the league, is still up to his stupid gimmicks. The guy had an insane amount of penalties, and his teammates hate him for that. His talent looks to be nonexistent, but maybe he will pick it up a bit.”

  3. FrankenOil says:

    I know it’s one game, but Klefbom is getting used on the third pairing? I thought it was slam dunk that he was moving up in the pecking order. This is something that bears watching but if it continues, Klefbom playing on the third pairing instead of in OKC will be a lost year of development imo – right up there with Renney’s/Oilers’ handling of Lander.

  4. DBO says:

    OK, it just got ridiculous. Lehtonan in Dallas resigns 5 years $5.9 mill per season. You know, I get wanting 50/50 split, but fuck off owners. Maybe fuck off GM’s. Dallas is hurting financially and you sign that deal a year ahead of time. minnesota is tight and they sign two huge deals. Sorry, but every signing of this stupid size diminishes the argument of the owners. I read a solid piece (I think Sportsnet) about how as a business the NHL’s problem (or specifically Bettman) is that they can’t or won’t walk away from areas losing money. The TV deal is like $5 mill per team, not $150 like the NFL, or $30 mill like the NBA. TV deal is too small to warrant sticking it out in losing cities. Bettman’s legacy is unneeded and losing expansion and 3 lockouts. Sorry, but if my CEO did that, he would be fired. If you don’t have a solid revenue sharing model to shore up losing teams, then you need to move teams to areas where they will make money. Quebec City, another Ontario based team, maybe Seattle, Hartford (how awesome would that be), maybe even Portland. Northern US cities and Canadian cities equals at least more revenue. 50/50 spit with more financially viable franchises makes the players happy. No revenue sharing makes the power/rich teams happy.

    It is all around you either share revenue, or you move teams to cities where they will make more money. 50/50 is no issue if you have teams making money, which means the revenues go up and the players make more. There is no real TV deal. Fuck…. just get it done. And maybe it starts with bye bye Bettman. I need a drink.

  5. russ99 says:

    LOL. That translation is awful. Translators don’t do a good job with flowery newspaper article language. The headline of ” Train from Lugano thwarted” is super-hilarious.

    Here’s my translation:

    Omark still has his artistry with the puck, however it is both to the detriment of himself and his other teammates.

    Due to Rüfenacht’s (opposing player) temperment, getting briefly in Omark’s face is enough to put him off his game

    His talent suggests the idea of a transfer coup (odd notion that all signings have to be seen as a huge success PR wise) is only phased in manner and short. (Head coach) Shedden nevertheless thinks his new Swedish player is capable of 60 points.

  6. russ99 says:

    Also, that facial hair Omark is sporting in the photo is super-funky.

  7. striatic says:

    Klefbom playing 3rd line D minutes in the SEL?

    he should be in OKC with Paajarvi and Lander for the year if he is going to be under played like that.

  8. bookje says:

    Pekka Rautakallio разрушенный Rob Schremp!

  9. bookje says:

    Pekka Rautakallio не понимает Rob Schremp хоккею!

  10. bookje says:

    DBO:
    OK, it just got ridiculous. Lehtonan in Dallas resigns 5 years $5.9 mill per season. You know, I get wanting 50/50 split, but fuck off owners. Maybe fuck off GM’s. Dallas is hurting financially and you sign that deal a year ahead of time. minnesota is tight and they sign two huge deals. Sorry, but every signing of this stupid size diminishes the argument of the owners. I read a solid piece (I think Sportsnet) about how as a business the NHL’s problem (or specifically Bettman) is that they can’t or won’t walk away from areas losing money. The TV deal is like $5 mill per team, not $150 like the NFL, or $30 mill like the NBA. TV deal is too small to warrant sticking it out in losing cities. Bettman’s legacy is unneeded and losing expansion and 3 lockouts. Sorry, but if my CEO did that, he would be fired.If you don’t have a solid revenue sharing model to shore up losing teams, then you need to move teams to areas where they will make money. Quebec City, another Ontario based team, maybe Seattle, Hartford (how awesome would that be), maybe even Portland. Northern US cities and Canadian cities equals at least more revenue. 50/50 spit with more financially viable franchises makes the players happy. No revenue sharing makes the power/rich teams happy.

    It is all around you either share revenue, or you move teams to cities where they will make more money. 50/50 is no issue if you have teams making money, which means the revenues go up and the players make more. There is no real TV deal. Fuck…. just get it done. And maybe it starts with bye bye Bettman. I need a drink.

    I totally disagree – each individual owner should act in their own personal best interest, but collectively they should agree to a set of rules preventing cost escalation. People don’t stop at red lights to be nice to each other, but rather because they have institutionalized a set of rules and penalties to prevent selfishness from causing accidents.

    Its like environmentalism. I drive a car, heat my big house, and so on because on an individual basis my impact to the environment is almost nothing relative to the global impact, however I strongly support the establishment of a carbon tax to influence the behaviour of people like me. There is nothing illogical about that.

    If the owners could use some kind of moral self control in sighing contracts, they could just do away with the CBA and salary cap and rely upon one another’s good will in a competitive market. However, that’s not how it works.

  11. commonfan14 says:

    DBO: I read a solid piece (I think Sportsnet)

    That was Spector. It’s okay to say it.

  12. Dalton says:

    Klefbom is by far the youngest D on Farjestads again this year – most of their D corps were born between 1979 and 1990. So it’s natural for him to be 6D in his first game. If he’s any good, he will rise up quick. But for the first game out of the gate, he’s the youngest, so that’s that.

    Edit: fyi, he was born in ’93, so he’s three years younger than two guys who were born in ’90, and the rest were born in the eighties, except for their assistant captain who was born in 79.

  13. Henry says:

    bookje: I totally disagree – each individual owner should act in their own personal best interest, but collectively they should agree to a set of rules preventing cost escalation.People don’t stop at red lights to be nice to each other, but rather because they have institutionalized a set of rules and penalties to prevent selfishness from causing accidents.

    Its like environmentalism.I drive a car, heat my big house, and so on because on an individual basis my impact to the environment is almost nothing relative to the global impact, however I strongly support the establishment of a carbon tax to influence the behaviour of people like me.There is nothing illogical about that.

    If the owners could use some kind of moral self control in sighing contracts, they could just do away with the CBA and salary cap and rely upon one another’s good will in a competitive market.However, that’s not how it works.

    bookje,

    Maybe the owners should gather in one room and beat Craig Leipold and Ed Snider down.

  14. Captain Obvious says:

    The money quote from that piece was from sports economist Andrew Zimbalist.

    “To come to the table and say we want you guys to drop your share in revenues from 57 per cent of revenues to 42 per cent is a declaration of unreasonableness and irrationality. … The bottom line is this: the league is not well managed, it’s not well structured, and that has to change. Ownership and Bettman can’t expect the players to assume the whole burden of those problems.”

    The lockout is 100% on the owners. They would rather tear down the league than form a partnership with the players.

    I would rather lose a season than have the players give in on this. Until the owners change this is going to happen over and over again, and the only way they are going to change is if they lose.

  15. DSF says:

    Decision day for Shane Doan.

    Apparently it’s between Phoenix and Vancouver.

  16. jfry says:

    the 210m gulf equates to a quarter million per player.

    i think there’s a lot of arguments that could push individual players onto both sides on this cba.

  17. Captain Obvious says:

    This isn’t about 210 million dollars. This is about the next negotiation. If the lockout works this time the owners are going to lockout the players every single time. Next time it will be guaranteed contracts. If the players cave now they might as well give up forever. There is no plus side to the owners proposal since it doesn’t even have the ancillary benefit of addressing any systematic issues the league might have.

  18. regwald says:

    Captain Obvious,

    I guess it depends if you believe cutting salaries for the players addresses a systematic issue of reducing profits.

  19. Gritncrust says:

    RUSS99 – thanks for the greatly improved translation, but you have to admit, you can’t beat Google translator for sheer entertainment value. Reminds me of CiO’s article on Joni Pitkanen: http://coveredinoil.blogspot.ca/2007/07/veto-morning-bulb-ago-joni-pitknen.html

  20. Captain Obvious says:

    The answer is obvious. NHL numbers ran the numbers and came to these conclusions. I don’t see how a fair minded person wouldn’t agree with this:


    Freeze the salary cap, or limit it to 1-2% increases, until such time as revenues increases bring HRR down to the 50% level. An outright freeze could easily produce a 50% split within 2-3 years if league revenues continue to rise at the same pace.
    Eliminate the salary floor. Loose the screws on the teams bleeding cash. This would not only provide immediate relief to the teams that need it, but also help bring the player share of HRR down to 50%.
    Adopt some of the non-cash contract restrictions that have been suggested. Things like limiting contracts to five years and constant annual contract values would go a long way to putting a drag on actual cash expenditures. It is much too easy to circumvent the cap in ways that puts financial strain on smaller franchises under the current rules.”

    This gives the owners everything they need and I think the players would agree. The problem is that the owners are living in another world. They aren’t negotiating in the interests of the league as a whole. They are negotiating as individuals trying to extract as much profit. It’s shortsighted and foolhardy and will damage the longterm prosperity of the league.

    It isn’t simply that the owners are greedy. They certainly are. Worse, however, is that they are incompetent.

  21. bookje says:

    Captain Obvious:
    The money quote from that piece was from sports economist Andrew Zimbalist.

    “To come to the table and say we want you guys to drop your share in revenues from 57 per cent of revenues to 42 per cent is a declaration of unreasonableness and irrationality.… The bottom line is this: the league is not well managed, it’s not well structured, and that has to change. Ownership and Bettman can’t expect the players to assume the whole burden of those problems.”

    The lockout is 100% on the owners.They would rather tear down the league than form a partnership with the players.

    I would rather lose a season than have the players give in on this.Until the owners change this is going to happen over and over again, and the only way they are going to change is if they lose.

    So, the players should take 55% of the total revenue (not Profit, but revenue) without taking any of the financial risk? Many players make more than the teams that they play for. Not even major CEOs do that. I think the NHL should offer to pay the Players 75% of team profits. The reason why the players will never form a league is because the current pay structure is supported through generous government subsidies and egomaniac owners who don’t mind losing money to own a team.

    IF the players formed their own league, they would have to take the risk of earning and/or losing money.

    I don’t have a problem with players getting paid lots as they are the draw that pulls in customers, but they are smart enough to know that their current salary structure is unsustainable. This is why when this thing finally gets worked out, the arrangement will be 50/50%

    Owners of teams like the Blue Jackets have no reason to give up. By not playing, they maybe lose $10-15 million a year, however the players on the BJs lose $10s of millions and only have a short career to earn that money. Some teams will lose less by not playing the season than by playing it. That is not the case for any players.

  22. bookje says:

    Captain Obvious:
    This isn’t about 210 million dollars.This is about the next negotiation.If the lockout works this time the owners are going to lockout the players every single time.Next time it will be guaranteed contracts.If the players cave now they might as well give up forever.There is no plus side to the owners proposal since it doesn’t even have the ancillary benefit of addressing any systematic issues the league might have.

    When both sides have something significant to lose by a lockout or strike, they will find ways to work together. When the owners have to worry about the players starting a league of their own, they will not lockout the players. The reality is that in general being an NHL owner right now is a terrible and shaky investment and as such, players have no interest in owning a league. Once owning an NHL is actually a lucrative investment and the owners have an actual risk in undertaking a lockout, then they will have an incentive to avoid doing so.

  23. Captain Obvious says:

    bookje,

    Except the small market teams got screwed by the last agreement. Moreover, the point isn’t whether they move to a 50/50 split. The point is how they move to a 50/50 split. If the league would agree to do it gradually this would already be over.

    If you care about the Blue Jackets, the answer there is to get rid of the salary floor which, once again, the players probably wouldn’t object to especially if they got an extra percentage or two of revenue.

  24. OilShorts says:

    About Klefbom – I was following the game online, and he had played 12:48 after the second period (3rd highest TOI for Dmen at that point). Obviously, this means that he did not play at all in the 3rd period or overtime.

    I find it hard to believe that he would be benched, considering they only had 6 D dressed, and by all accounts was having a good game. That really only leaves the conclusion that he picked up an injury, but I can’t find any information to support that conclusion. I hope that he is fine.

  25. Billy Boisey says:

    bookje: So, the players should take 55% of the total revenue (not Profit, but revenue) without taking any of the financial risk?

    I take issue with this statement. Players, aside from being labour AND product combined, take a tangible financial (and personal) risk every time they step on the ice, it is just that it is not one easily quantified. Risk of a career ending injury, or a debilitating injury that would impact a post-playing career, is certainly a financial risk, no? It is certainly as devastating as any financial “risk” as any the owners take on.

    And what is the obsession with the 50/50 revenue split? To me this seems to be just an artificial construct. Given the inherent difficulty in measuring owner effort/risk versus player effort/risk it could just as easily be argued that it should stay at 57/43. Heck, there are 20 players out on the ice on any give night, and only one owner, why should the ratio not be 20/1? The problem is that the owners are forever deceptive with their true operating costs, so having a meaningful discussion about the ideal split is very difficult.

    50/50 is just a nice fluffy round number that gets thrown around in the press, because it superficially seems fair (although in actuality, it may not be fair at all), and actually requires little critical thought. It is only because the NHL functions as a cartel that 50/50 is even remotely under consideration.

  26. Captain Obvious says:

    I was looking at some numbers in one of Willis’ articles from a few days back. The old deal, the one that wasn’t good enough for Katz, would have been the highest amount of public dollars devoted to funding an arena in history. This accounts for inflation, so it isn’t the most only in absolute dollars, it is also the most in relative dollars. That means that city council signed the worst deal a city has ever signed and it still wasn’t good enough. Think about that for a minute or two.

  27. RickDeckard says:

    Billy Boisey,

    If the risk is injury, shouldn’t the NHLPA fight for better pensions and stop protecting dangerous players like Torres?

    50/50 is what the other two leagues are getting, are hockey players less injury prone than NFLers?

  28. Ducey says:

    Captain Obvious: bookje, Except the small market teams got screwed by the last agreement. Moreover, the point isn’t whether they move to a 50/50 split. The point is how they move to a 50/50 split. If the league would agree to do it gradually this would already be over. If you care about the Blue Jackets, the answer there is to get rid of the salary floor which, once again, the players probably wouldn’t object to especially if they got an extra percentage or two of revenue.

    You may noted that the players have not offered anything along the lines you have suggested.

    They want to leave everything as it is and just have the owners revenue share. Maybe they will move off that position but so far they won’t even talk about the same issues as the owners.

    Until either side makes a realistic offer, they are both to blame. Its clear that they want to test the strength of the other side. Any good negotiator will always know that you get the best deal for your side when your opponent is under some pressure.

    Its tough to tell who will crack first as some owners may actually save $$ by having no hockey while others have to pay big bonuses. Katz is sitting pretty, with few bonuses to pay and likely increasing income from the Oil Kings.

    I’d suggest that a deal that sees a 1% reduction per yr in the players share until they get to 50% would be fair, but that might see the cap continue to go up, hurting many of the smaller teams. They still need to find a way to create some equality. Getting rid of the cap floor has a lot of problems, including that some teams will be full of replacement level players. As the gap between rich and poor grows, you get declining attendance (who wants to go see the KC Royals play), teams making draft picks based upon signability, and an impact on the overall brand. I doubt the players would agree to it anyway.

    It will be interesting to see what will happne with PHX. If that deal falls through again, the NHL could use the prospect of contraction to get the player’s attention.

  29. DSF says:

    Captain Obvious:
    I was looking at some numbers in one of Willis’ articles from a few days back.The old deal, the one that wasn’t good enough for Katz, would have been the highest amount of public dollars devoted to funding an arena in history. This accounts for inflation, so it isn’t the most only in absolute dollars, it is also the most in relative dollars.That means that city council signed the worst deal a city has ever signed and it still wasn’t good enough.Think about that for a minute or two.

    This is not true.

    In the recent Seattle arena deal, the city is putting $200 million, financed by a bond issue, into the project.

    In Edmonton, the city is putting $125 million into the deal and borrowing Katz $100 million which he will be required to pay back with interest, over the course of the deal.

    Additional funds come from a user pay ticket tax which would NOT exist without the arena.
    The current ticket surcharge goes to fund upkeep of Rexall Place.

    The city also can recoup it’s original investment (and potentially much more over time) from the CRL, revenue which would NOT exist if the arena were not built.

    The major difference in the Seattle/Edmonton situations is that Seattle is requiring the investor group to guarantee the revenue from their equivalent of the CRL.

    This likely would have been a good move for the city to insist on from Katz but that train has left the station.

  30. Billy Boisey says:

    RickDeckard,

    Are seriously arguing that risk of injury is not financial risk?

    How the players choose to reward this risk (i.e. how they apportion revenues to salaries or pensions) is up to them. But there is risk there.

    That the other leagues are moving towards a 50/50 split does not mean that the basis for it is well-based in logic.

  31. Captain Obvious says:

    Ducey,

    You are simply wrong about the player’s offer. The player’s offer does reduce the players % share. It doesn’t go all the way to 50% but it sets the framework where that could be done.

    I agree that contraction is a powerful card in the owner’s toolbox. However, the elephant in the room is the salary floor and revenue sharing. They can’t contract all of the teams that lose money. The only solution for those teams is to either eliminate/reduce the salary floor and/or revenue sharing. The fact that the owner’s proposal doesn’t include those things says a lot.

  32. RickDeckard says:

    Billy Boisey,

    Does the 57% even include things like hotels, medical and pensions?

    If MacDonalds starts hiring at $10/hr and BK does the same, why wouldn’t Wendy’s follow suit?

  33. vishcosity says:

    When my grand mother was like 92, I again found her watching baseball with the volume off. I asked her if she thought the Angels could win the title. She looked at me disappointedly and said, “I don’t care who wins.” Slowly I’m starting to get it. Now more than ever it feels a bit like hoping John Deere out performs Massey Ferguson on the NYSE.

    When we realize that ending the money flow to these corporate giants is the only way we are going to do anything about anything, when we really start to vote with our dollar, then maybe Ed Snider will actually start to listen. Until then, I’m only going to expect lock out after lock out.

    Curious that this lock out is happening just as Bernanke announces QE infinity.

    Should we cheer for the South Side Athletic Club or the Maple Leafs instead? Or should we ditch those corporations too? Some really poor skaters made AA bantam this year, could it be because their inclusion comes with a $6000 cheque? Its been said that the best bantam player in Canada in currently playing in Edmonton. Does anyone here know his name? Has anyone seen him play? My son says he has an 85 mph wrist shot.

    Why does anyone care about a league that is half a world away? No one has answered my question as to what is wrong with the arena at Northlands, or why Edmonton needs a new arena, can anyone tell me why the top right corner of this thread should have Klefbom instead of Edmonton players who actually play in Edmonton? Should we blow players off when they leave town?

    The lady and I are going to watch Phoenix AAA teams this year. There is a league with teams in Scottsdale, San Diego, LA, and San Jose. Clearly she would way rather give them $5 than another dime to MLSE.

    I want to change my vote from the other day. I want to vote that Alan tracks the top four AAA kids playing in Edmonton instead.

  34. Dalton says:

    What it said:

    “-Centre Ryan Nugent-Hopkins hasn’t been skating with the Oilers at the Kinsmen Twin Arenas yet. He was in Minnesota working out with his Octagon (agency) group of players, then went to Vail, Colo., with Sam Gagner for a camp run by Sidney Crosby’s agent, Andy O’Brien.”

    What I read:

    “-Centres Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Sam Gagner are going to be Sid Crosbies this season.”

  35. vishcosity says:

    Options 1.
    $400 million to one downtown arena. A few giant construction companies make millions in profits.

    Option 2:
    200 community leagues in Edmonton @ $2 million each. 200 construction companies each make a few hundred grand.

    If this is really about the wellness of the people of Edmonton, aka VOR’s happy factor, which is more likely to produce the best results?

    NOT EVEN CLOSE.

  36. bookje says:

    Billy Boisey:
    RickDeckard,

    Are seriously arguing that risk of injury is not financial risk?

    How the players choose to reward this risk (i.e. how they apportion revenues to salaries or pensions) is up to them.But there is risk there.

    That the other leagues are moving towards a 50/50 split does not mean that the basis for it is well-based in logic.

    Players can insure themselves for risk and a small percentage of players have career ending injuries that affect their overall earnings beyond what is standard. The odds of losing money by owning an NHL team are probably about 50% and you cant really insure yourself against that.

  37. Billy Boisey says:

    bookje,

    Mr. Katz is certainly trying to insure himself, is he not?

    Certainly the lack of closure in Glendale is the product of Jamison wanting insurance.

  38. Billy Boisey says:

    RickDeckard,

    You are missing the point.

    1) Injury represents risk

    2) 50/50 is a human construct and does nothing to actually address the investment of the parties involved. That the negotiating parties choose not to address this does not change the fact.

  39. Billy Boisey says:

    bookje,

    Furthermore hockey represents the sole source of income for most players, and thus even a partial loss of income, supplemented by insurance, can represent an overall loss relative to owners for whom hockey is not their sole or even primary source of income.

  40. RickDeckard says:

    Billy Boisey,

    I am not missing the point. If the risk is so great why don’t they work to lessen it? Hall played how many games with a bad shoulder even though the team didn’t want him to? Why do they fight to protect the players that cause the injuries? The PA deserves no sympathy for the beating they are about to take.

  41. Bar_Qu says:

    Frankly, I’m having a hard time believing you are all discussing this issue at all. Both sides have points, but when broken down, both sides simply want more money at the other side’s expense. If I had to pick, I would say the owners are the bad guys here, but not by much. I think they deserve as much fan opprobium as they get and much more besides.

    The Katz thing, well, dude needs to step up and explain why a good deal is not good enough (ht to Mr. Brownlee on that) but he is burning goodwill in the process. In light of the lockout, it looks even worse.

    Get a discussion going on the relative merit of replacing Horcoff with Pitlick or why Gretzky is better today than most 4th liners, but enough of the discussion on this insane game of chicken.

  42. delooper says:

    I can’t see why anyone would take sides in this. Both the owners and players are making a massive financial mistake by not getting their houses in order and sorting this out on time. As far as I can tell, that’s all there is to this story.

  43. bookje says:

    Billy Boisey:
    bookje,

    Furthermore hockey represents the sole source of income for most players, and thus even a partial loss of income, supplemented by insurance, can represent an overall loss relative to owners for whom hockey is not their sole or even primary source of income.

    This is irrelevant. We are talking about their bargaining position, not some element of fairness or equity. If the NHL doesnt’ play hockey this year, the Owners lose a tiny bit of money, the Players lose a ton because the players are the ones who make almost all of the profits of the league. What incentive do the owners have to play the season, only the impact of the lockout on the long term income of the league (i.e, people tuning out the game in the future).

  44. commonfan14 says:

    vishcosity: Options 1.
    $400 million to one downtown arena. A few giant construction companies make millions in profits.
    Option 2:
    200 community leagues in Edmonton @ $2 million each. 200 construction companies each make a few hundred grand.
    If this is really about the wellness of the people of Edmonton, aka VOR’s happy factor, which is more likely to produce the best results?
    NOT EVEN CLOSE.

    When you were a kid, what brought you more hapiness – your local park or having the Oilers in town?

  45. hunter1909 says:

    commonfan14: When you were a kid, what brought you more hapiness – your local park or having the Oilers in town?

    Parks? When I was a kid, we were lucky not to have to fight wolves as we ran to and from school(uphill both ways).

  46. Ducey says:

    Captain Obvious: Ducey, You are simply wrong about the player’s offer. The player’s offer does reduce the players % share. It doesn’t go all the way to 50% but it sets the framework where that could be done. I agree that contraction is a powerful card in the owner’s toolbox. However, the elephant in the room is the salary floor and revenue sharing. They can’t contract all of the teams that lose money. The only solution for those teams is to either eliminate/reduce the salary floor and/or revenue sharing. The fact that the owner’s proposal doesn’t include those things says a lot.

    I am always wrong according to you.

    Perhaps you did not notice the part where they are willing to take a slightly lesser percentage of a much bigger pie – as they want to redefine HRR. Thats no concession. In fact, with the revenue sharing proposal attached, big teams will not only achieve no savings, but will likely pay more to the players AND have to pay more to other teams.

    Fehr has got some guts trying to come away with more than he has now, and yet he has sold it to you as a reasonable first offer.

  47. Ducey says:

    commonfan14: When you were a kid, what brought you more hapiness – your local park or having the Oilers in town?

    I would hope that we could have parks AND the Oilers. For $115 M or so of provincial money , we likely can.

  48. bookje says:

    LT (and other people who remember the 70s) – While hockey fades from view, this website all about the things of the 70s might amuse you for a while.

    http://my-retrospace.blogspot.ca/

  49. vishcosity says:

    When I was a kid, the local park had swings and a teeter totter. If we biked about ten blocks there was a merry go round. About the same time I saw the WHA Oilers get thumped by the Hartford Whalers. Certainly it was that night when I first realized the world was a pretty big place.

    I remember community league public skating nights. There were line ups for hot chocolate, 100 people on the ice, I remember the big kids were sooo good at skating. That for me was amazing.

    I brought my boy to his first Oiler’s game when he was 3. It was a bit early because he cried through most of the first period for fear of the fireworks. About the same time, we had a community league rink a few blocks away. Every night he wanted to go skating, so we would put these 1950′s skates on (still have em), I would pull him in a snowsuit on a sled and he would walk on the ice for hours each night while I hung with the ice manager waiting for my chance to go home. Later I gave in, worked on my game, and started to play with him. Now it sucks because he skates circles around me and I’m routinely humbled by a 13 year old kid.

    So I just asked him, of the NHL games we went to, or the times we spent at the rink, which memory did he hold more strongly? Without a second of hesitation he said unconditionally that it was absolutely the rink.

    Believe whatever you want. I say let Katz take his football to Kansas City then build in your own backyard. Play with your kids and get to know your neighbours. The guy who ran the rink and I became great friends and I remember those times way better than those few nights I was at Northlands.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca