HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Don't expect hockey for at least a year (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=105799)

Joe T Choker 09-26-2004 11:57 PM

Don't expect hockey for at least a year
 
and get used to the word IMPASSE

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=impasse

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php...94&postcount=2

Go owners Go! ;)

Hab-a-maniac 09-27-2004 01:50 AM

I hope your Go Owners Go chant was sarcastic. Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can take either's side. I'm neutral; they're both being @$$holes about the whole thing and need to be willing to give up more. I see the problems of the players in this situation more clearly, so I hate the owners a bit more but they both p!ss me off. What's discouraging is the number of hockey yahoos who don't know the economics or issues at stake. If we get a salary cap, I guarantee 1/3 of the people bashing the players and wanting a cap so badly will complain. It's hypocrisy all around.

Now, the other 2/3 will see it as a small price to pay to save the economic spiral the NHL is in. But others will go back on their old staunch positions and bemoan when their favourites teams must give up their superstars at early stages of their careers. And not with a trade, but an outright cut. Of course, unless a cap like the NBA's that allows going over the limit to resign stars. But that won't fix all problems. There aren't any guaranteed contracts in a hard cap.

In a cap, it won't totally hinder superstars from making just as much money as they do now but the lower level guys will be jerked around from town to town even worse than now except not during seasons. You can forget FA season, but the worse part is not as many deadline deals due to working out salary structures. Most trades now will be of future UFAs. You see, in a way, big market teams can get their big UFAs if they so choose to spend a bunch of cash.

A guy like Iginla can sign a 4yr/4Mper deal on the Red Wings when he becomes a UFA cap casualty. Now, a small market team can maybe offer more like Calgary. Maybe same length, 6 million a year. But Detroit can pay Iginla a sick bonus to convince him to take the smaller base salary. Maybe an upfront 20 million dollar bonus. Now this is unless the NHL has a hard cap limiting bonuses/incentives and taxing those perhaps. As well as a rule guaranteeing contracts. Without those two stipulations, the big cheese teams with money can still get the superstar they want to overpay.

Classic Devil 09-27-2004 05:50 AM

There would have to be restrictions on signing bonus'.

txpd 09-27-2004 06:25 AM

i am reasonably sure that any nhl salary cap would include all bonuses paid under the cap number. exempting signing bonus from the cap would just allow the big markets teams to pay what they pay now up front rather than in salary. of the course the difference between the nhl and the signing bonus league, the nfl is that football has no guaranteed contracts. the only guaranteed money is the signing bonus.

the_hockey_knowitall 09-27-2004 01:54 PM

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

littleHossa 09-27-2004 02:32 PM

I hate both sides now, the hard cap at $31 millions is not the answer to a better NHL and Goodnow talks nonsense all day long. The seperate interviews with Bettman and Goodnow on CBC were so bad, they basically took their answers right out of a book and they brough nothing new. Goodnow especially doesn't know what he's talking about. "The owners are entirelly responsible for the increase in salaries" Then why the hell does the union have any power? Idiot...

Anyway, they could both take their heads out of their respective ***** and start negociating, or hire a mediator who should film them and make them see how stupid they look, either way they can solve this but won't.

MLH 09-27-2004 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hab-a-maniac
Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can take either's side. I'm neutral; they're both being @$$holes about the whole thing and need to be willing to give up more.

I strongly disagree. As a fan of a small market team (Buffalo) I'm pulling for the owners 100%. Hockey won't survive in some of the most passionate markets without a hard salary cap.

H/H 09-27-2004 02:57 PM

Why would a salary cap change anything? It will only mean owners will have to care even less than they already do. Half of the owners in this battle probably forgot they even had NHL teams.

Hab-a-maniac 09-27-2004 07:17 PM

Yeah, some owners will still charge ridiculous prices for tickets, food, etc. If that becomes the case, people will hit backlash on the owners big time. They've been whining about salaries driving up the prices for tickets and merchandise, etc. But in some cities, salary cap will make little difference in how the owner may/may not screw over his team and fans. Sorry Hawks fans, but Bill Wirtz won't be any more likeable or tolerable under a cap system. You've gotta see the big picture. Rather than demand for them to rush hockey back for the sake of having it, people need to think about what needs to be comprimised by both sides to make it a fair and equitable league for all.

Beukeboom Fan 09-27-2004 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hab-a-maniac
Yeah, some owners will still charge ridiculous prices for tickets, food, etc. If that becomes the case, people will hit backlash on the owners big time. They've been whining about salaries driving up the prices for tickets and merchandise, etc. But in some cities, salary cap will make little difference in how the owner may/may not screw over his team and fans. Sorry Hawks fans, but Bill Wirtz won't be any more likeable or tolerable under a cap system. You've gotta see the big picture. Rather than demand for them to rush hockey back for the sake of having it, people need to think about what needs to be comprimised by both sides to make it a fair and equitable league for all.

On the Hawks front, agree with you 100% that it won't directly change the way Wirtz does business. One thing though - Hawks might retain more of their talent if other teams couldn't offer UFA $'s though (Roenick, Amonte, Chelios, Belfour).

I do think that if salaries came down enough, ticket prices would be reduced (not nearly the same rate) in some markets. That would not be the case in places like TOR or DET where every game is sold out. Some newer markets might be able to lower ticket prices to introduce a wider fan base to the game, and not have an impact on the bottom line.

H/H 09-27-2004 07:31 PM

Quote:

Hawks might retain more of their talent if other teams couldn't offer UFA $'s though (Roenick, Amonte, Chelios, Belfour).
Roenick and Chelios were traded. I think there were more reasons than $ that made the two other guys split town as soon as they saw daylight. Playing for the Blackhawks seems to have that effect.

roadrunner 09-28-2004 12:55 AM

For every cash cow, soon appear the parasites. It is currently the lawyers' turn to get rich, as both sides will fight long and hard with legal eagles spoon-feeding ideas and statements to both sides' higher-ups.

Some agents, on the other hand, can take a several month vacation with all the riches gained from outrageous contracts that knuckle-headed owners forked over in the recent past.

*sigh* What a waste of a great league. Let's hope that both sides spend their respective "war chests" wisely and productively.

shveik 09-28-2004 01:29 AM

1. Right now:
Owners to players: take the cap or go play elsewhere!

2. Later. Declare this magic IMPASSE. Spend a load of money on lawyers, dissolve the NHL, and .

3. Afterwards:
Owners to players: take the cap or go play elsewhere!

Sounds like a great plan!

Sotnos 09-28-2004 04:44 PM

Don't expect hockey for at least a year
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army

While everyone else has gone off on a tangent, I actually clicked on the link in the original post and must ask...are we supposed to just take Crispy's word for it that this will happen? :dunno: I'm not understanding what you were getting at, SNA.

Beukeboom Fan 09-28-2004 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H/H
Roenick and Chelios were traded. I think there were more reasons than $ that made the two other guys split town as soon as they saw daylight. Playing for the Blackhawks seems to have that effect.

The main reason they were traded is that they wanted to get paid "market value". If they couldn't cash in elsewhere, they'd probalby both still be Hawks.

Joe T Choker 09-29-2004 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos
While everyone else has gone off on a tangent, I actually clicked on the link in the original post and must ask...are we supposed to just take Crispy's word for it that this will happen? :dunno: I'm not understanding what you were getting at, SNA.

I'm just saying if you don't believe a guy like Crispy who speaks his mind *and is still part of a Hockey organization* all of the time, who can you believe?

:dunno:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.

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.