HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   More bad CBA news (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=101315)

Son of Steinbrenner 09-02-2004 01:40 PM

More bad CBA news
 
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...29&hubName=nhl


`There has been no change in the approach from the NHL, they are still only interested in negotiating a (salary) cap system which provides us for no reason for optimism and no basis for any real progress,'' NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said on a conference call.



`We finished the process they initiated and we participated in it co-operatively and openly, but again, we're dubious as to the value of the process,'' said Daly. ``We'll take them to their word that it was meaningful from their perspective.''

Does the union know that time is running out to get this thing done? why can't they come up with a proposal? I'm basically on the players side with this but i can see how the owners are frustrated that the union hasn't come back at them with anything. oh well i guess i'll watch more college hockey this year.

True Blue 09-02-2004 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
Does the union know that time is running out to get this thing done? why can't they come up with a proposal? I'm basically on the players side with this but i can see how the owners are frustrated that the union hasn't come back at them with anything.

They DID come up with one. The players offered to roll back salaries to what they were a decade ago and to install a luxury tax system that would model the NBA's or MLB's. Bettman summarily rejected the proposal. In another thread I posted about this. Bettman feels that a luxury tax system is not going to give him a proper control over players salaries. He is not offering a choice. He is only stating what is acceptable to him. And to him, a luxury tax system IS NOT acceptable. He ONLY wants a hard salary cap.
While he is on this kick, there will be no negotiation. Bettman has taken any and all wiggle room out. He has taken out the negotiation process. There is no negotiating with him. It's either a $31m hard cap or no hockey.

True Blue 09-02-2004 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
you would think they would have a second offer by now.

What 2nd proposal can there be? The NHLPA will not accept a hard salary cap and Bettman will not accept anything but a hard salary cap. Makes things hard to negotiate.

True Blue 09-02-2004 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sather Hater
There are thousands and thousands of people who would love to play in the NHL and would play for alot less money. If it were up to me, I would throw all the current players to the curb, and start over.

Yeah...it's ALL the players fault. After all, they held a gun to Leonasis's head to force him to give Jagr his contract. And the way that they manhandled Hicks into Guerin's contract was atrocious. TO say nothing of how they forced Dolad to dish out the $$$.

Son of Steinbrenner 09-02-2004 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
What 2nd proposal can there be? The NHLPA will not accept a hard salary cap and Bettman will not accept anything but a hard salary cap. Makes things hard to negotiate.

well the owners won't accept those terms and the union may be able to come up with a better offer. do you think either the owners or players have put there best offer on the table but at least the owners are putting something on the table. i'm on the players side with this because this is america and there should never be a cap on how much money people make. (not to mention i'm a yankees fan and i would look like a huge hypocrite) my point is by now the union could have improved there offer the good thing is these guys are still talking the bad news is what they are saying after each of there session.

Levitate 09-02-2004 09:40 PM

so your against the players cuz they make millions...but your for the billionare owners who would then just pocket those millions they'd save on paying the players crap, and the only thing they have to do to make that money is to own the team and then sit back and watch the money roll in?

Sather Hater 09-02-2004 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
so your against the players cuz they make millions...but your for the billionare owners who would then just pocket those millions they'd save on paying the players crap, and the only thing they have to do to make that money is to own the team and then sit back and watch the money roll in?

Yes it's called running a business. "The only thing the owner has to do is sit back and make money?" He was the one who spent 250 Million Dollars to purchase the team. Is it wrong he makes $10+ million dollars a year? How much money do the player's invest in the team? No money out of their pocket, and they make $10 million a year. Are the players paying the payroll of a few thousand employee's between the team, arena employee's, television crews, etc.?

Sather Hater 09-02-2004 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Yeah...it's ALL the players fault. After all, they held a gun to Leonasis's head to force him to give Jagr his contract. And the way that they manhandled Hicks into Guerin's contract was atrocious. TO say nothing of how they forced Dolad to dish out the $$$.

The owner's try to stay competitive, and put the best product they can on the ice.
Everytime they hand out one of those contracts they raise the price of tickets to pay for it. That's why it costs over $500 for a family of four to go to a Rangers game, not including tolls, parking, and food. But I guess that doesn't bother you because you don't believe in a salary cap and think the players should be making $10 million a year.

Son of Steinbrenner 09-03-2004 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
They DID come up with one. The players offered to roll back salaries to what they were a decade ago and to install a luxury tax system that would model the NBA's or MLB's. Bettman summarily rejected the proposal. In another thread I posted about this. Bettman feels that a luxury tax system is not going to give him a proper control over players salaries. He is not offering a choice. He is only stating what is acceptable to him. And to him, a luxury tax system IS NOT acceptable. He ONLY wants a hard salary cap.
While he is on this kick, there will be no negotiation. Bettman has taken any and all wiggle room out. He has taken out the negotiation process. There is no negotiating with him. It's either a $31m hard cap or no hockey.

Yeah i do remember that offer but it was rejected you would think they would have a second offer by now. i suppose you are right about bettman not having any wiggle room but there is always that false hope that the players will come up with something the owners can accept. it seems that the players are already wondering about a salary cap (see roenicks comments) i just want hockey this season i could care less who wins this pissing match. in the end the only people that suffer besides the team employees and arena staff are the fans.

Sather Hater 09-03-2004 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner




I'm basically on the players side with this but i can see how the owners are frustrated that the union hasn't come back at them with anything.

I am on the owner's side. All these athlete's are overpaid, and they are lucky to be doing what they are for a living. If they weren't playing hockey half of them would be making french fries at McDonald's. There are thousands and thousands of people who would love to play in the NHL and would play for alot less money. If it were up to me, I would throw all the current players to the curb, and start over. It will just be a few years of less talented players, but the talent level would get better eventually as they draft the young guys. In my opinion the top player's in the league should make one million dollars max, and that is being generous.

True Blue 09-03-2004 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sather Hater
The owner's try to stay competitive, and put the best product they can on the ice.
Everytime they hand out one of those contracts they raise the price of tickets to pay for it. That's why it costs over $500 for a family of four to go to a Rangers game, not including tolls, parking, and food. But I guess that doesn't bother you because you don't believe in a salary cap and think the players should be making $10 million a year.

So let me get this straight. THe owners try to stay competitive, and dole out crazy contracts. But somehow this is the fault of the players? NO ONE forced Leonasis to sign Jagr to a 5 year, $55m deal. Just like NO ONE forced Hicks to sign Guerin to a 5 year, $45m contract. Ditto for Dolan & Holik.
And, yes, the owners ARE going to raise ticket prices. But as a consumer, you have the option of either buying them or not. That's the choice. The economy changes. Ticket prices are going to be raised (just like taxes).
And where did I say that I think that players should be making $10m per year? What I DO think is that stars should be able to get paid like stars. Notice the NFL,despite a cap (and you DO know that it is going to be a $90m cap for next year, right?), the star players are still paid like star players.
What makes the NFL work is a huge central revenue source and no guaranteed contracts. Something that does not exist in the NHL.

CrookedRain 09-03-2004 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
So let me get this straight. THe owners try to stay competitive, and dole out crazy contracts. But somehow this is the fault of the players? NO ONE forced Leonasis to sign Jagr to a 5 year, $55m deal. Just like NO ONE forced Hicks to sign Guerin to a 5 year, $45m contract. Ditto for Dolan & Holik.
And, yes, the owners ARE going to raise ticket prices. But as a consumer, you have the option of either buying them or not. That's the choice. The economy changes. Ticket prices are going to be raised (just like taxes).
And where did I say that I think that players should be making $10m per year? What I DO think is that stars should be able to get paid like stars. Notice the NFL,despite a cap (and you DO know that it is going to be a $90m cap for next year, right?), the star players are still paid like star players.
What makes the NFL work is a huge central revenue source and no guaranteed contracts. Something that does not exist in the NHL.

Well...actually someone DID FORCE Leonsis to give Jagr his deal just like someone forced The Rangers to give Holik his deal - it's called the market price. No one would have had to give these players exhorbitant deals if other teams weren't competing for their services. It's completely and utterly unfair to say that the owners are irresponsible insofar this aspect is concerned. It is not unfair to say that they are greedy, but it's unfair to say that these contracts were awarded irresponsibly.

The simple fact is that, as you say, there is no huge central revenue source for the NHL. Hockey simply isn't that popular. What the NHL should agree on is a sliding cap that works in direct proportionality with team's revenues. In other words, a cap that allows a team that's making money to spend more on a player and the exact opposite with teams who are losing revenues.

This would gurantee the survival of the the healtiest teams. It would result in some teams closing down but I'm not convinced this is a bad thing for the NHL. Actualy, I would arguee that it's better.

Sather Hater 09-03-2004 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrookedRain
Well...actually someone DID FORCE Leonsis to give Jagr his deal just like someone forced The Rangers to give Holik his deal - it's called the market price. No one would have had to give these players exhorbitant deals if other teams weren't competing for their services. It's completely and utterly unfair to say that the owners are irresponsible insofar this aspect is concerned. It is not unfair to say that they are greedy, but it's unfair to say that these contracts were awarded irresponsibly.

The simple fact is that, as you say, there is no huge central revenue source for the NHL. Hockey simply isn't that popular. What the NHL should agree on is a sliding cap that works in direct proportionality with team's revenues. In other words, a cap that allows a team that's making money to spend more on a player and the exact opposite with teams who are losing revenues.

This would gurantee the survival of the the healtiest teams. It would result in some teams closing down but I'm not convinced this is a bad thing for the NHL. Actualy, I would arguee that it's better.

I would just hate to lose great hockey towns like Edmonton or Calgary because they struggle to make a profit. Teams like Nashville, Atlanta, Anaheim, and Florida/Tampa I wouldn't really miss.

CrookedRain 09-03-2004 12:01 PM

Well...the thing is, Calgary has one of the lowest payrolls in the league and went to the cup finals.
A sliding cap such as I'm proposing would simply stop teams from overspending. And combining that with some revenue sharing then who knows what could happen. Also, it should be adjusted to account for the discrepancy in the US and Canadian dollar.

The bottom line is that without a source of revenue like the television contract the NFL, MLB and NBA enjoy, there can be no NHL without some sort of spending cap. Everyone in the real world has a spending cap - (I want a Porsche Boxster but I haven't got the coin for it). I suppose that owners could make gentlemen's agreements (as illegal as that may be) and agree amongst themselves to not spend more than such amount for any player but no one trusts anyone when it comes time to put more money in their pockets and that sort of activity is illegal.

I do wish that the NHL teams would open up their books so that we could believe them when they claim operating losses. I do wish the players would say - "You know what? $10 million is an awful lot of money for playing hockey".

broadwayblue 09-03-2004 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sather Hater
That's why it costs over $500 for a family of four to go to a Rangers game, not including tolls, parking, and food.

i know sporting events are expensive to attend...but honestly i don't see how you can support that number. you can take a family of 4 to a Rangers game for significantly less than that...especially if you're not counting tolls, parking, and food. how did you come up with that number? is this family sitting in club seats?

Sather Hater 09-03-2004 04:06 PM

$125 a ticket x 4 tickets = $500

Anywhere in the lower half of the garden will cost you $125 minimum. Of course if you bring binoculars and sit in the nose bleed sections you can save a few dollars.

True Blue 09-03-2004 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sather Hater
$125 a ticket x 4 tickets = $500

Anywhere in the lower half of the garden will cost you $125 minimum. Of course if you bring binoculars and sit in the nose bleed sections you can save a few dollars.

Then don't buy tickets that cost $125. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. And I have seen plenty of games from the 400s. And I can tell you that the view is great. It is not Hockey Heaven for nothing. If you want to see a game, then pay what you can afford. If not, enjoy it from the comforts of your couch.

Sather Hater 09-03-2004 06:09 PM

I never said I couldn't afford it. I don't even have kids, I was making a point that the price is ridiculous.

True Blue 09-03-2004 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sather Hater
I never said I couldn't afford it. I don't even have kids, I was making a point that the price is ridiculous.

The price for the purples is on par with most other arenas.

broadwayblue 09-03-2004 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sather Hater
I never said I couldn't afford it. I don't even have kids, I was making a point that the price is ridiculous.

it's just that you stated it unfairly. claiming that it costs a family of 4 over $500 to attend the game when there are 3 ticket levels (400's, 300's, 200's) that would get this family in to the Garden for 20% to 50% of that price is like saying that the price of a new car is over $50,000. it can be...but that doesn't mean it has to. i would agree that the average cost of bringing a family of 4 to a game at MSG (with tickets, food, souvenirs, parking, tolls, etc.) is probably between $300 and $400...although you could spend less, or more.

Sather Hater 09-03-2004 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
The price for the purples is on par with most other arenas.

I used the Garden just as an example, because we are all Ranger fans here. I am not complaining about the price in just the garden being too expensive, all hockey arena's. You are basically paying for 2-3 hours of entertainment. People complain about movies being overpriced at $8 a ticket, that seems like an absolute bargain comparing to going to a sporting event.

Edge 09-03-2004 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Then don't buy tickets that cost $125. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. And I have seen plenty of games from the 400s. And I can tell you that the view is great. It is not Hockey Heaven for nothing. If you want to see a game, then pay what you can afford. If not, enjoy it from the comforts of your couch.

Problem is that is not the way to ever get something out in the public.

If that is the future of the sport than we might as well pack it in now because a whole new generation of hockey fans will never be able to see a game live.

Levitate 09-03-2004 09:49 PM

but do you honestly think that owners will significantly lower ticket prices even if they get a cap and all this cost certainty stuff they want? hell no!

they will wring the fans for everything they can get...as long as the fans keep paying, they'll keep the ticket prices right where they are. and for the most part, if a team is doing well they sell out their home games (well...maybe not ALL teams) so what incentive do the owners have to lower ticket prices? people are still paying...the arena is still filling up...what do you mean people can't afford to go see a hockey game? there's an arena full of them!

only if people flat out say "i can't afford this" and stop going to games will ticket prices come down significantly...no other way, doesn't matter how much money the owners save with a new CBA or whatever...it's still gonna be similar to what it is now

on the CBA negotiations...i'm not really expecting to hear any good news until the thing is actually done. i think right up until the day it's over with we'll here this kind of "bad news". this is just a negative negotiation process with both sides spinning what they want...i don't really think either side is gonna come out and say "yeah we had a great negotiation today, i think we really moved things forward, the other side had some great ideas and we worked on some stuff". it's always gonna be sniping at the other side as they jockey for public opinion.

so i don't even see this as "bad news".

Radek27 09-03-2004 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue
it's just that you stated it unfairly. claiming that it costs a family of 4 over $500 to attend the game when there are 3 ticket levels (400's, 300's, 200's) that would get this family in to the Garden for 20% to 50% of that price is like saying that the price of a new car is over $50,000. it can be...but that doesn't mean it has to. i would agree that the average cost of bringing a family of 4 to a game at MSG (with tickets, food, souvenirs, parking, tolls, etc.) is probably between $300 and $400...although you could spend less, or more.


OK and you think the average Joe can afford that? Going to a Baseball game costs about $50 bucks for two! The ticket prices have gotten too hi just like salaries. In my honest opinion one of the problems today is there is no clear cut BEST player to judge against. Before you had Gretzky, Coffey, and Roy as the best of the best in their positions, so therefore no one should make anywhere near what Gretzky was making because they will never touch his records or numbers. Gretzky was also a player that loved the NHL and didn't demand to be paid insane money his WHOLE career.

Edge 09-03-2004 10:36 PM

Quote:

but do you honestly think that owners will significantly lower ticket prices even if they get a cap and all this cost certainty stuff they want? hell no!
When faced with the possibility no one is going? Maybe. I've certainly seen stranger price drops in different markets.

Quote:

they will wring the fans for everything they can get...as long as the fans keep paying, they'll keep the ticket prices right where they are. and for the most part, if a team is doing well they sell out their home games (well...maybe not ALL teams) so what incentive do the owners have to lower ticket prices? people are still paying...the arena is still filling up...what do you mean people can't afford to go see a hockey game? there's an arena full of them!

Problem is that arean's ARENT filling up and many of those sellouts you see in areas like NY are because of company bought tickets.

Around the league, attendance isn't that great.

Quote:

only if people flat out say "i can't afford this" and stop going to games will ticket prices come down significantly...no other way, doesn't matter how much money the owners save with a new CBA or whatever...it's still gonna be similar to what it is now
I dunno about that, owners want people in the seats because it means they get money from other areas {parking, food, etc.}

But when you're already losing money {by the truck load} it makes it hard to justify cutting ticket costs.

Hockey doesn't have the wealth that some other sports has to draw from. When the Yankees dont sell a game they have other revenues they can draw from without going into the red. With hockey it's more a level right now of trying not to get deeper into the red.

Quote:

on the CBA negotiations...i'm not really expecting to hear any good news until the thing is actually done. i think right up until the day it's over with we'll here this kind of "bad news". this is just a negative negotiation process with both sides spinning what they want...i don't really think either side is gonna come out and say "yeah we had a great negotiation today, i think we really moved things forward, the other side had some great ideas and we worked on some stuff". it's always gonna be sniping at the other side as they jockey for public opinion.

so i don't even see this as "bad news".
Granted there is a level of politics in everything, both sides arent even close to agreeing what they disagree on.

Where the bad news come in is that this sport simply cannot survive work stoppages that happen elsewhere. There simply isn't the wiggle room. So positioning or not it's bad news because while both sides play their little game you increase the odds of certain teams going under and other developments.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.