HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Very great editorial today in La Presse (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=102921)

Russian Fan 09-11-2004 12:40 PM

Very great editorial today in La Presse
 
Réjean Tremblay is a french editorialist. He's not the great hockey analyst when it's about the game but he's still one of the most respectful journalist when it comes to get to the source.

maybe it will put some light into the ignorance of the pro-owners or the pro-lockout of this world.

(THIS IS A FRENCH TRANSLATION)

It's like if we where on the conference table where some NHL Owners & a dozen of players & NHLPA speakers.

When we listen to the tape, we have the feeling that Bob Goodenow is trying to convince Gary Bettman & Bettman to told him that they are not on the same page.

It's fascinating. You want to know how much the owners want to cut players budget per year ? MORE THAN 450,000,000$. An average of 15,000,000$ per team. That's what Gary Bettman told to the NHLPA in the last meeting.

But we learn more about it. Bob Goodenow told the players & their agents that the supposed loss of the NHL teams were about 224M$ last year.

Six teams loss 169M$ of that 224M$ . Three of those six had 65,8M$ claim losses.

But this is not to shake Bob Goodenow. One the meeting tape he says
Quote:

One of those team is an original six. They split their arena with a NBA team & they have a TV network. This team loss 30,5M$ last year. It's obvious that the accountants methodwere questionnable & that there's a lot of problem in the administration that are not cause by the CBA
That team is the NYRangers.

Goodenow continue without saying who is the next team he's talking about
Quote:

it's a midwest team in a market with no competition of the NBA. The owners loss 35M$ but they told the league that they know what they are doing &they don't have any financial problems.
.

You will recognize that it was the St-Louis Blues property of one the girls of the Walton family. The Walton family is directly related to Wal Mart & that are multi-billionnaires.

Goodenow also explain that many teams are in an extreme difficult market. He specifically name the Carolina Hurricanes & the Anaheim Ducks. Goodenow said
Quote:

Gary Bettman think that the Anaheim Ducks value is 0$. Walt Disney is ready to sold the team for 1$ if the next ownership is ready to take the debts that comes with it. Three other owners signed some arena lease that are simply insanely bad. Those owners would not even qualify for an expansion team if they had that kind of lease to present to the league. Those 3 teams are the New Jersey Devils, the New York Islanders & the Pittsburgh Penguins. In those 3 cases. A new deal or a new arena could potentially generate close to 25M$ in revenues per year. Those problems are not due to the actual CBA.
The FANS are very critical over the PLAYERS. But it's the NHLPA that are making all the effort to negotiate so far. On that tape of the meeting, Goodenow remind everyone that the players put an offer last thursday.
Quote:

We offer a 5% paycut on every player that are having an NHL contract. This is a 108M$ that we give back to the owners. Also we proposed 5% taxe to every team that goes over 40M$. The money that will come with this luxury tax is gonna be spread in a sharing-revenu mode to the teams in need. Also we propose a form of sharing-revenu that respect what the owners talked about not so long ago. Every time Gary Bettman said that we are not talking the same language.
It's fascinating to listen to Goodenow. It's more fascinating to think that every players & their agents are listening also. All they have to do is to call a number or go to a website with a password & they have an update of everything that's going on with the negotiations.

It's obvious that the players are winning the war of communication. Trevor Linden & Vinny Damphousse are very articulate & convinced. They answers their emails 18 hours a day.

The players are prepared for a lockout. Some like Joel Bouchard try to organize to create a temporary league that the players would play in some Quebec cities. José Théodore talked about what will happen if there's a lockout. His potential losses is about 8M$ CDN but he doesn't lose his smile. He's convince like his other teammates that there's a war to battle & that we have to do it for everyone that will play in the NHL today or someday.

The owners neglect one important aspect in that conflict. The players are educated & used to respect their leader & to sacrify themselves.

It starts at 12 years old & they obey to the coach & follow their captain. Older, their are experienced & physical, the fight for their smaller teammated, they go in the corners to pass the puck to the talented players.

So if their coach is Goodenow & their captains are Linden & Damphousse told them to fight, they will fight. That's how they made of.

REJEAN TREMBLAY

''Just a side note that almost 90% of the editorials that Tremblay have made about today's era of players , he was always very critical about them so to him to talk about that , that way, says a lot ''

GKJ 09-11-2004 12:47 PM

Quote:

One of those team is an original six. They split their arena with a NBA team & they have a TV network. This team loss 30,5M$ last year. It's obvious that the accountants methodwere questionnable & that there's a lot of problem in the administration that are not cause by the CBA
Like I said in another thread, this would be the Rangers. It could be the Bruins, but they made the playoffs and NESN is not their own network, while MSG is a network almost exclusively for the Rangers and Knicks, who split an arena. The Blackhawks don't have a TV deal, Montreal and Detroit don't split their arenas, the Leafs don't have their own network.


So everyone who said the Rangers are ruining hockey for the past 7 years are right in more ways than one.

Russian Fan 09-11-2004 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Like I said in another thread, this would be the Rangers. It could be the Bruins, but they made the playoffs and NESN is not their own network, while MSG is a network almost exclusively for the Rangers and Knicks, who split an arena. The Blackhawks don't have a TV deal, Montreal and Detroit don't split their arenas, the Leafs don't have their own network.


So everyone who said the Rangers are ruining hockey for the past 7 years are right in more ways than one.

I think Leafs TV is property of the Leafs.

GKJ 09-11-2004 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
I think Leafs TV is property of the Leafs.


I'm not educated on Leafs TV, but the Leafs were a team that went 2 rounds into the playoffs, so I highly doubt they lost that much money. Their ownership is a relatively resourceful group, and I heard somewhere (don't know if this is still the case) that they get money from the Raptors for using the arena.

cws 09-11-2004 01:07 PM

Looks like one of those articles that pop up every now and then in the Swedish papers.

I'd explain more but now it's time for about 10 hours of college football. I'll let you wrestle with the implications of that Swedish reference.

MS 09-11-2004 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Réjean Tremblay is a french editorialist. He's not the great hockey analyst when it's about the game but he's still one of the most respectful journalist when it comes to get to the source.

maybe it will put some light into the ignorance of the pro-owners or the pro-lockout of this world.

(THIS IS A FRENCH TRANSLATION)

It's like if we where on the conference table where some NHL Owners & a dozen of players & NHLPA speakers.

When we listen to the tape, we have the feeling that Bob Goodenow is trying to convince Gary Bettman & Bettman to told him that they are not on the same page.

It's fascinating. You want to know how much the owners want to cut players budget per year ? MORE THAN 450,000,000$. An average of 15,000,000$ per team. That's what Gary Bettman told to the NHLPA in the last meeting.

But we learn more about it. Bob Goodenow told the players & their agents that the supposed loss of the NHL teams were about 224M$ last year.

Six teams loss 169M$ of that 224M$ . Three of those six had 65,8M$ claim losses.

[/B]

This is exactly it. 6 teams are the problem. 24 teams are either profitable or within shouting distance of a profit ... if the new CBA cut the average salary by about 10% (as opposed to the 40% the league is proposing) to around $1.6-1.7 million, pretty much all of these teams would be financially viable.

The problem is 6 teams, and two of those (NYR and St. Louis) are owned by enormously wealthy interests that aren't affected significantly by losses.

So that gets us down to 4 or 5 problem franchises - some of which are in horrible hockey markets (Anaheim, Carolina, Florida), and some of which have been horribly mis-managed over the last decade (NYI, Pittsburgh). The problems in none of these cities have anything to do with the CBA ... the biggest problem the league has is putting franchises in non-viable hockey markets, and then expecting to tailor a CBA to make these franchises work. Like any bad business venture in any area, these organizations deserve to lose money and it shouldn't be on the backs of the players, most of which are suiting up for financially viable organizations under the current system, to compensate for the poor decision-making of the NHL and its owners.

There does need to be a market correction here, but the extent of the correction the owners are demanding is absolutely ridiculous.

Russian Fan 09-11-2004 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cw7
Looks like one of those articles that pop up every now and then in the Swedish papers.

I'd explain more but now it's time for about 10 hours of college football. I'll let you wrestle with the implications of that Swedish reference.

Well Réjean Tremblay is not a Tabloid editorialist by the way. I don't know if your reference to swedish papers is about making rumours out of a miscontext sentence but that's not the case here.

Vlad The Impaler 09-11-2004 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS
This is exactly it. 6 teams are the problem. 24 teams are either profitable or within shouting distance of a profit ... if the new CBA cut the average salary by about 10% (as opposed to the 40% the league is proposing) to around $1.6-1.7 million, pretty much all of these teams would be financially viable.

The problem is 6 teams, and two of those (NYR and St. Louis) are owned by enormously wealthy interests that aren't affected significantly by losses.

So that gets us down to 4 or 5 problem franchises - some of which are in horrible hockey markets (Anaheim, Carolina, Florida), and some of which have been horribly mis-managed over the last decade (NYI, Pittsburgh). The problems in none of these cities have anything to do with the CBA ... the biggest problem the league has is putting franchises in non-viable hockey markets, and then expecting to tailor a CBA to make these franchises work. Like any bad business venture in any area, these organizations deserve to lose money and it shouldn't be on the backs of the players, most of which are suiting up for financially viable organizations under the current system, to compensate for the poor decision-making of the NHL and its owners.

There does need to be a market correction here, but the extent of the correction the owners are demanding is absolutely ridiculous.

Uh... it's a negociation.

Obviously, the 40% figure goal is bunk.

Is there anyone out there who really believes that?

There is something you forget, though. You're saying a small correction might make all teams viable but it will probably not allow them all the means to be competitive. This is what the owners are attempting here. The plan being that if they fail, they should at least get viability.

Personally, I'm much more concerned about an equal playing field so I support the owners pushing for more.

Russian Fan 09-11-2004 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Uh... it's a negociation.

Obviously, the 40% figure goal is bunk.

Is there anyone out there who really believes that?

There is something you forget, though. You're saying a small correction might make all teams viable but it will probably not allow them all the means to be competitive. This is what the owners are attempting here. The plan being that if they fail, they should at least get viability.

Personally, I'm much more concerned about an equal playing field so I support the owners pushing for more.


Vlad you forget 1 thing & that's the most important. You can get a salary cap of 31M$ & still not be competitve if you're not hiring the RIGHT PEOPLE for the RIGHT JOB !!!

Equal playing field , what an illusion. Equal playing would mean equal GM's competency, equal Owner competency, equal staff competency.

Equal playing field in terms of a cap will only reward mediocrity like the NFL. I would expand on that but I'm a bit tired writing 2000 words & getting 7 words in return.

thinkwild 09-11-2004 01:41 PM

An equal playing field isnt fair, or fun as football fans are now saying in ever increasing numbers. You need a system that allows great teams and rebuilding teams to co-exist. And cycle through their stages as their team grows, peaks, ages and rebuilds. The natural fair cycle of life.

You cant buy a winner, you must grow one.

30 equal teams isnt Utopia, its Hell.

GKJ 09-11-2004 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
You need a system that allows great teams and rebuilding teams to co-exist.
30 equal teams isnt Utopia, its Hell.

Bingo. :thumbu:

hockeytown9321 09-11-2004 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
30 equal teams isnt Utopia, its Hell.

and impossible. ask Karl Marx.

DownFromNJ 09-11-2004 03:41 PM

Quote:

Also we proposed 5% taxe to every team that goes over 40M$.
Sounds like a really, really weak luxery tax.

x-bob 09-11-2004 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Réjean Tremblay is a french editorialist. He's not the great hockey analyst when it's about the game but he's still one of the most respectful journalist when it comes to get to the source.

maybe it will put some light into the ignorance of the pro-owners or the pro-lockout of this world.

(THIS IS A FRENCH TRANSLATION)

It's like if we where on the conference table where some NHL Owners & a dozen of players & NHLPA speakers.

When we listen to the tape, we have the feeling that Bob Goodenow is trying to convince Gary Bettman & Bettman to told him that they are not on the same page.

It's fascinating. You want to know how much the owners want to cut players budget per year ? MORE THAN 450,000,000$. An average of 15,000,000$ per team. That's what Gary Bettman told to the NHLPA in the last meeting.

But we learn more about it. Bob Goodenow told the players & their agents that the supposed loss of the NHL teams were about 224M$ last year.

Six teams loss 169M$ of that 224M$ . Three of those six had 65,8M$ claim losses.

But this is not to shake Bob Goodenow. One the meeting tape he says That team is the NYRangers.

Goodenow continue without saying who is the next team he's talking about .

You will recognize that it was the St-Louis Blues property of one the girls of the Walton family. The Walton family is directly related to Wal Mart & that are multi-billionnaires.

Goodenow also explain that many teams are in an extreme difficult market. He specifically name the Carolina Hurricanes & the Anaheim Ducks. Goodenow said

The FANS are very critical over the PLAYERS. But it's the NHLPA that are making all the effort to negotiate so far. On that tape of the meeting, Goodenow remind everyone that the players put an offer last thursday.

It's fascinating to listen to Goodenow. It's more fascinating to think that every players & their agents are listening also. All they have to do is to call a number or go to a website with a password & they have an update of everything that's going on with the negotiations.

It's obvious that the players are winning the war of communication. Trevor Linden & Vinny Damphousse are very articulate & convinced. They answers their emails 18 hours a day.

The players are prepared for a lockout. Some like Joel Bouchard try to organize to create a temporary league that the players would play in some Quebec cities. José Théodore talked about what will happen if there's a lockout. His potential losses is about 8M$ CDN but he doesn't lose his smile. He's convince like his other teammates that there's a war to battle & that we have to do it for everyone that will play in the NHL today or someday.

The owners neglect one important aspect in that conflict. The players are educated & used to respect their leader & to sacrify themselves.

It starts at 12 years old & they obey to the coach & follow their captain. Older, their are experienced & physical, the fight for their smaller teammated, they go in the corners to pass the puck to the talented players.

So if their coach is Goodenow & their captains are Linden & Damphousse told them to fight, they will fight. That's how they made of.

REJEAN TREMBLAY

''Just a side note that almost 90% of the editorials that Tremblay have made about today's era of players , he was always very critical about them so to him to talk about that , that way, says a lot ''

Great article!!!!!! :handclap:

That deal from the NHLPA doesn't sound that bad. :dunno:

x-bob 09-11-2004 04:00 PM

I heard that the Panthers are one of those teams losing alot of money

montreal 09-11-2004 04:13 PM

I'm not a Tremblay fan but this is one of his better articles, especially coming from him. It makes me sick to think there won't be a season, but it seems hopeless that there will be any NHL season. :mad:

X0ssbar 09-11-2004 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Réjean Tremblay is a french editorialist. He's not the great hockey analyst when it's about the game but he's still one of the most respectful journalist when it comes to get to the source.

maybe it will put some light into the ignorance of the pro-owners or the pro-lockout of this world.

(THIS IS A FRENCH TRANSLATION)

It's like if we where on the conference table where some NHL Owners & a dozen of players & NHLPA speakers.

When we listen to the tape, we have the feeling that Bob Goodenow is trying to convince Gary Bettman & Bettman to told him that they are not on the same page.

It's fascinating. You want to know how much the owners want to cut players budget per year ? MORE THAN 450,000,000$. An average of 15,000,000$ per team. That's what Gary Bettman told to the NHLPA in the last meeting.

But we learn more about it. Bob Goodenow told the players & their agents that the supposed loss of the NHL teams were about 224M$ last year.

Six teams loss 169M$ of that 224M$ . Three of those six had 65,8M$ claim losses.

But this is not to shake Bob Goodenow. One the meeting tape he says That team is the NYRangers.

Goodenow continue without saying who is the next team he's talking about .

You will recognize that it was the St-Louis Blues property of one the girls of the Walton family. The Walton family is directly related to Wal Mart & that are multi-billionnaires.

Goodenow also explain that many teams are in an extreme difficult market. He specifically name the Carolina Hurricanes & the Anaheim Ducks. Goodenow said

The FANS are very critical over the PLAYERS. But it's the NHLPA that are making all the effort to negotiate so far. On that tape of the meeting, Goodenow remind everyone that the players put an offer last thursday.

It's fascinating to listen to Goodenow. It's more fascinating to think that every players & their agents are listening also. All they have to do is to call a number or go to a website with a password & they have an update of everything that's going on with the negotiations.

It's obvious that the players are winning the war of communication. Trevor Linden & Vinny Damphousse are very articulate & convinced. They answers their emails 18 hours a day.

The players are prepared for a lockout. Some like Joel Bouchard try to organize to create a temporary league that the players would play in some Quebec cities. José Théodore talked about what will happen if there's a lockout. His potential losses is about 8M$ CDN but he doesn't lose his smile. He's convince like his other teammates that there's a war to battle & that we have to do it for everyone that will play in the NHL today or someday.

The owners neglect one important aspect in that conflict. The players are educated & used to respect their leader & to sacrify themselves.

It starts at 12 years old & they obey to the coach & follow their captain. Older, their are experienced & physical, the fight for their smaller teammated, they go in the corners to pass the puck to the talented players.

So if their coach is Goodenow & their captains are Linden & Damphousse told them to fight, they will fight. That's how they made of.

REJEAN TREMBLAY

''Just a side note that almost 90% of the editorials that Tremblay have made about today's era of players , he was always very critical about them so to him to talk about that , that way, says a lot ''

Wow - so the players are using the internet now, even password protected pages..get out.. :shakehead

So this article is bascially saying that even though the league lost 220+ mil its okay b/c its just 6 franchises - rediculous argument. The NHL still lost 220 MILLION DOLLARS!!

Let me ask you this - why do the other 3 major sports either have a salary cap or luxury tax? Their leagues aren't losing money (regardless of what multi-billionaire owns them) and they are far more successfull and generating far more revenue than the NHL. Yet even though the NHL brings in significantly less revenue than the big 3 and the players make the same salaries (even more than NFL players) the player's feel the NHL doesn't deserve to have any cost certainty?? Honestly, if you were an owner looking at the other sports, I think its pretty obvious which direction you would want to head.

Here is some breaking news for you - the salary cap is as much about controlling the owners as it is player's salaries. You don't think certain NFL owners would spend more if they could? The players will still be fairly compensated and the deserving star players will still make a signficant amount.

I want hockey as much as the next guy, but I can't blame the owners for recognizing the game needs some serious changes and looking at the other, more successfull leagues for a business model.

Vasculio 09-11-2004 04:57 PM

Players want to keep their salaries... who could blame them ?

Owners want to make more cash for themselves... see above.

Something is not right in the marvelous world of hockey, and that's money. Now of course we can't change money, players and owners neither. Something is sure though, and it's that it's the fans that are suffering from this crap.

Greed greed GREED !

So tired of their childish demeanor... is it normal that somebody, anybody if anyone care, makes MILLIONS $ for PLAYING in a sport ? Ok, right, it's pro sport, they spent their youth PLAYING and 'developping' in junior hockey... they could have done something better, more intelligent, who knows... but they became pro hockey players.

Now it's not bad, wanting to be popular, some kind of icon for the common people while practicing a sport. Especially if these players are the best.

And the owners in all of that ? Of course, they 'own' their respective teams, and like anybody owning a 'company', they want it to flourish. Otherwise, what would be the goal ? Something is sure, though, it's that they became greedy. Too much greedy. They paid their players with big money, hoping to gather the best team. Not a bad idea, but it back-fired. Fortunately.

Fortunately ? Is that guy dumb ? Lol, perhaps ! :amazed:

This conflict isn't there for nothing... this league is in the wrong way, big time ! And I hope the players AND the owners will learn something out of this... sorrily, I don't think it will happen. But again, who knows ? :dunno:

Tom_Benjamin 09-11-2004 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Shelf
Let me ask you this - why do the other 3 major sports either have a salary cap or luxury tax?

A luxury tax is entirely different than a salary cap. Hockey players - and baseball players - are willing to take a luxury tax. A luxury tax does not define a specific player share of revenue. That is the key issue in this dispute.

Football has a terrible CBA for the players because they are easily replaced. Basketball players also have a poor agreement for them because except for a handful of superstars they are all easily replaced.

Baseball and players get a better deal because they can't be replaced.

Why did you think there was a difference? Obviously baseball and hockey players have more leverage. They are worth more.

Tom

Russian Fan 09-11-2004 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Shelf
Wow - so the players are using the internet now, even password protected pages..get out.. :shakehead

So this article is bascially saying that even though the league lost 220+ mil its okay b/c its just 6 franchises - rediculous argument. The NHL still lost 220 MILLION DOLLARS!!

No one question the FACT that NHL TEAMS lost money.

The question that YOU & so many in dire need to answer me & others that forget to answered themselves is :

DO YOU RELATE THE LOSSES DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE CBA ?

The answer if you ask me is NO ! NHL teams lose money because the people the owners hired like the GM's & the accountants are MAKING BAD DECISIONS.

If the OWNERS, OH BY THE WAY ARE SO SUCCESFULL IN THEIR REAL BUSINESS managed their franchise like they manage their companies, WE wouldn't be here talking about the CBA or $$$$, we would be talking about training CAMPS !!



Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Shelf
Let me ask you this - why do the other 3 major sports either have a salary cap or luxury tax? Their leagues aren't losing money (regardless of what multi-billionaire owns them) and they are far more successfull and generating far more revenue than the NHL. Yet even though the NHL brings in significantly less revenue than the big 3 and the players make the same salaries (even more than NFL players) the player's feel the NHL doesn't deserve to have any cost certainty?? Honestly, if you were an owner looking at the other sports, I think its pretty obvious which direction you would want to head.

Well there's some MLB teams that are losing money due to bad decisions & some players are making 13-14-15M$ per season. Some teams can't afford a player & they rebuild, they try to make decisions that would help their teams.

I just don't know why you are pointing me about luxury tax when NHLPA offers that to the owners.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Shelf
Here is some breaking news for you - the salary cap is as much about controlling the owners as it is player's salaries. You don't think certain NFL owners would spend more if they could? The players will still be fairly compensated and the deserving star players will still make a signficant amount.

Seriously, you want the players to say yes to a cap because OWNERS/GM can't control themselves. If your boss is telling you to do more work because he can't control himself to go playing tennis in the afternoon, would you say YES NO PROBLEM ?

I'm very ironic of course but that's what you just said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Shelf
I want hockey as much as the next guy, but I can't blame the owners for recognizing the game needs some serious changes and looking at the other, more successfull leagues for a business model.

Seriously are you that NAIVE to think the OWNERS want a CAP for the love of the GAME ?

X0ssbar 09-11-2004 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
A luxury tax is entirely different than a salary cap. Hockey players - and baseball players - are willing to take a luxury tax. A luxury tax does not define a specific player share of revenue. That is the key issue in this dispute.

Football has a terrible CBA for the players because they are easily replaced. Basketball players also have a poor agreement for them because except for a handful of superstars they are all easily replaced.

Baseball and players get a better deal because they can't be replaced.

Why did you think there was a difference? Obviously baseball and hockey players have more leverage. They are worth more.

Tom

I agree with you that the luxury tax system does not define a specific player's share of revenue - but is does restric it.

My point being is that out of the 4 major's, the NHL is the least successfull yet has the least restrictive CBA. I clearly see a problem with this. If anything the NHL should have the tightest CBA because they ARE less successfull.

I personally don't feel that any athlete at the professional level is easily replaced.

hockeytown9321 09-11-2004 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Shelf
Wow - so the players are using the internet now, even password protected pages..get out.. :shakehead

So this article is bascially saying that even though the league lost 220+ mil its okay b/c its just 6 franchises - rediculous argument. The NHL still lost 220 MILLION DOLLARS!!

Let me ask you this - why do the other 3 major sports either have a salary cap or luxury tax? Their leagues aren't losing money (regardless of what multi-billionaire owns them) and they are far more successfull and generating far more revenue than the NHL. Yet even though the NHL brings in significantly less revenue than the big 3 and the players make the same salaries (even more than NFL players) the player's feel the NHL doesn't deserve to have any cost certainty?? Honestly, if you were an owner looking at the other sports, I think its pretty obvious which direction you would want to head.

Here is some breaking news for you - the salary cap is as much about controlling the owners as it is player's salaries. You don't think certain NFL owners would spend more if they could? The players will still be fairly compensated and the deserving star players will still make a signficant amount.

I want hockey as much as the next guy, but I can't blame the owners for recognizing the game needs some serious changes and looking at the other, more successfull leagues for a business model.

Those other 3 sports also have much larger TV national TV contracts. That might have something to do with the profitability, even though I disagree about most of them being profitable in the first place-especially baseball.

Motown Beatdown 09-11-2004 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
Sounds like a really, really weak luxery tax.


You think so? Add the numbers. Half the teams, 15 of them had payrolls over 40 million last year. Total over that 40 million was roughly 240 million dollars. If you get a dollar to dollar match over the luxury tax thats 240 million dollars generated. And if you only give tax revenue to teams under the luxury tax each of the 15 teams under 40 million would get roughly 16 million dollars.

Now my point is owners are not gonna want to pay a huge tax penalty. These owners are gonna instruct their GM's to keep their payrolls down near that number. There's a reason why some MLB teams flirt with that salary tax numbers and only two go over it. Because owners do not want to pay a penalty at the end of the year. And thats with a weak tax system MLB uses.



ps, here's the site i got the salaries from.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

djhn579 09-11-2004 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
DO YOU RELATE THE LOSSES DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE CBA ?


YES. You provided the answer to that in your first post. A few owners are responsible for much of the losses. Those few owners have some of the highest salaries in the league and don't mind losing that money. The rest of the owners have to pay the going rate for players, and the going rate is set by people that don't mind losing money.

The CBA does not provide for any restriction on how much teams raise their salaries, and that obviously has an affect on all the other teams. So, like it or not, the CBA is at fault.

That being said, there are many ways a hard cap can be negotiated to take into consideration all the complaints that the greedy player supporters have voiced.

You want teams to be able to keep the players they drafted? Fine, allow for each team to have a $2M per year exception per player that can be used on up to 3 players that the team drafted. That should give them an edge in keeping their players, but the exception can't be used for another player until the contract expires. (if you use the $2M on a 3 year contract for player A, you can use the remaining 2 exceptions on other players, you don't get the 1st exception back until the contract for player A expires).

You want to make sure the owners don't get too much profit at the expense of the players? Just negotiate what are considered revenue streams, then set the players take to a percentage of those revenue streams. Then set limits on the owners profits: If the owners make over $400M combined, the players take increases 5%. If the owners profits drop under $100M, the players take decreases by 5%.


The only thing preventing a deal getting done is the players greed.

Russian Fan 09-11-2004 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
YES. You provided the answer to that in your first post. A few owners are responsible for much of the losses. Those few owners have some of the highest salaries in the league and don't mind losing that money. The rest of the owners have to pay the going rate for players, and the going rate is set by people that don't mind losing money.

Where in my 1st post ? It's all about BAD MANAGEMENT, BAD ACCOUNTABILITY !!

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
The CBA does not provide for any restriction on how much teams raise their salaries, and that obviously has an affect on all the other teams. So, like it or not, the CBA is at fault.

So the problem is all about the OWNERS, again stop dreaming about it's the players fault. You want something that would control the owners but it's not the players fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
That being said, there are many ways a hard cap can be negotiated to take into consideration all the complaints that the greedy player supporters have voiced.

Do you realize that you just called players greedy ? What it an OWNER to you ? Someone who is very poor & doesn't make any money from their other companies ?
The owners are so good to the people that they never fired a lot of people in the other companies in order to make more profits. They do this FOR THE PURE & HOLY LOVE OF THE GAME.

End of sarcasm.

Some players are indeed greedy but is it 100% ? I don't think so. Please don't do like Vlad to cite me a Bryan McCabe sentence it does not represent the whole entity of the NHLPA members.


Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
You want teams to be able to keep the players they drafted? Fine, allow for each team to have a $2M per year exception per player that can be used on up to 3 players that the team drafted. That should give them an edge in keeping their players, but the exception can't be used for another player until the contract expires. (if you use the $2M on a 3 year contract for player A, you can use the remaining 2 exceptions on other players, you don't get the 1st exception back until the contract for player A expires).

Again keeping the players you draft, you can until they are 31 years. If you can't because he does not fit your budget maybe that's because they hired another players that is fitting in it or maybe they a player they paid too much & they can't paid the other guy for the GM's mistake for that contract.

Again , all you do is telling how you want to be a perfect world where every player does not want to be paid , gas if FREE when you buy a car, tickets will be free if you prove that you're a real hockey fan.

Demented Reality showed a lots of time that a cap would be worse for the SENS that is having a SOLID CORE of talented players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
You want to make sure the owners don't get too much profit at the expense of the players? Just negotiate what are considered revenue streams, then set the players take to a percentage of those revenue streams. Then set limits on the owners profits: If the owners make over $400M combined, the players take increases 5%. If the owners profits drop under $100M, the players take decreases by 5%.

Again do you realize that you ask to the players to police the OWNERS for doing well ?

It's already like this by the way. Players salaries increase in the last 10 years because the revenues of the NHL increase. They didn't do this ALONE !!

Also, no one here prove me why YOUR SABRES are a victim of the CBA ? a victim of the players fault ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
The only thing preventing a deal getting done is the players greed.

WRONG ! The only thing preventing a deal getting done is to the owner realizing that it's not a dictatorship era & that you have 2 sides to make a deal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 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.