HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   A message to Bob... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=127942)

LeafErikson* 02-06-2005 11:39 AM

A message to Bob...
 
I saw this on the Toronto Sun web site, pretty good article, thought I'd share it with anyone who hasn't seen it.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Toront...22268-sun.html

Mess 02-06-2005 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I saw this on the Toronto Sun web site, pretty good article, thought I'd share it with anyone who hasn't seen it.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Toront...22268-sun.html

I see your article and raise you this article ..

http://newyorkpost.com/sports/39987.htm

LeafErikson* 02-06-2005 12:10 PM

From the "Here comes Hell week" Larry Brooks, New York Post, Feb 6, 2005-It's the same approach the league has taken to the game itself, institutionalizing obstruction so that the weakest teams are given an unfair chance to beat the most talented. It's the same approach the league has taken to the schedule, where the number of divisional and rivalry games are kept to a minimum because the weak markets are dependent upon visits from Original Six clubs.

It seems very appropriate comming from a writer of a New York paper, who only gets to see things from his side. Never having to write about the woes of the Yankees inablility to compete with the mega super franchises and their huge payroll. Maybe Mr Brooks should take a one year visit to Edmonton and see what it's like on the other side of the fence. I don't think the NHL is going to get the linkage that it wants, but it should. It's not out of line to think that players salaries should be based on league wide revenue. It's better for the game, from top to bottom. If the NHL is the gate driven system that it claims to be then having a league where the salaries are fixed to revenues will only help bring fans in, well in theory it should. So what I mean is, if the players want to make more money, then they'll have to play a more entertaining style of hockey to bring fans into the seats, more buts in the seats means more people will also likely be willing to pay to watch at home, and more people watching at home means bigger tv contracts. In theory this is a great system, but theories aren't proven unless someone is willing to take the risks and go for a system that is based on linkage. Are we going to see linkage, no. Am I babbling now, yes. :help: :lol

Leaf Lander 02-06-2005 12:29 PM

media is linked ot big business


fans are missign there game and the players dont wnat to make 75 000 ayr again cause thats what they made when i was a kid 20 yrs ago

Mess 02-06-2005 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
From the "Here comes Hell week" Larry Brooks, New York Post, Feb 6, 2005-It's the same approach the league has taken to the game itself, institutionalizing obstruction so that the weakest teams are given an unfair chance to beat the most talented. It's the same approach the league has taken to the schedule, where the number of divisional and rivalry games are kept to a minimum because the weak markets are dependent upon visits from Original Six clubs.

It seems very appropriate comming from a writer of a New York paper, who only gets to see things from his side. Never having to write about the woes of the Yankees inablility to compete with the mega super franchises and their huge payroll. Maybe Mr Brooks should take a one year visit to Edmonton and see what it's like on the other side of the fence. I don't think the NHL is going to get the linkage that it wants, but it should. It's not out of line to think that players salaries should be based on league wide revenue. It's better for the game, from top to bottom. If the NHL is the gate driven system that it claims to be then having a league where the salaries are fixed to revenues will only help bring fans in, well in theory it should. So what I mean is, if the players want to make more money, then they'll have to play a more entertaining style of hockey to bring fans into the seats, more buts in the seats means more people will also likely be willing to pay to watch at home, and more people watching at home means bigger tv contracts. In theory this is a great system, but theories aren't proven unless someone is willing to take the risks and go for a system that is based on linkage. Are we going to see linkage, no. Am I babbling now, yes. :help: :lol

You are painting him with the Big Market brush .. while I will be the first to agree that I am not a big fan of his .. I can not objectively see where he is misrepresenting information ..

It is true that Bettman is tearing apart the big market stronger teams to even the playing surface for the weakest ones .. and I do not see Edmonton or any small-market team on his hit list.. he is talking about the non-hockey USA NHL markets.

He is absolutely correct that Fans due to the lockout are going to stay away in droves and that their wages even after the 24% is going DOWN DOWN DOWN if tied to revenue or better put loss there of ..

He is correct in saying that the NHL is putting in clauses to punish the owners for hiding revenue and that is based on the fact that they have done it before and will do it again and then saying trust me ..

but the part about the article that I got the most from is written mostly between the lines ... Sports Networks like TSN and ESPN are funded from big corporation and TV deals from the NHL.. not from the players that they broadcast .. So are you more likely to report unbiased on this situation when your pay cheque comes from the NHL in a round-about way ?? If you are a reporter or employee that works for these Networks what kind of direction are you going to get from owners of these stations .. ??

I must say TSN does do a good job as they have 1 of each to be as neutral as possible .. Sort of like those 3 monkeys .. Hear no evil (Glen Healy) .. See no Evil (Brian Burke) .. and Speak no Evil ( Bob McKenzie) ..to give us all sides of this of this dispute .. but in general all reports have to be viewed either Paper or TV or Radio with who pays their salary, and that will always have a perceived bias as a result built in ..

Mess 02-06-2005 12:52 PM

My Definition of LINKAGE

In the players proposal they offered a 24% rollback .. That acknowledges a problem and they offered a solution ..

We all agree this is right but does not fix the problem alone by its action ..

Then the players offered a Luxury tax penalty for Salaries above a certain figure .. That to me is by definition a Soft Cap .. and those fines can go to the small-market teams to help them with costs ..

Then you fix the system that is giving you the most problems .. Salary Arbitration and Qualifying offers to players at 110% ..Forces highly inflationary uncontrolable and unpredictable results and are the problem when talking cost certainlty as they reward poor performance financially..

These are the two things that need to be addressed MOST .. in order to get the players proposal to work in principle .. If you could come up with a system that puts real limits or drags on Salary increases then that does work going forward with a 1 time correction ..

Linkage is complete BS ..from a players point of view and really a whole different animal for discussion here .. The Owners know this lockout which they are in control of is going to drive fans away in droves .. They are considering shortening the season from 82 to 70 games perhaps .. These things are seriously going to effect the future Revenue of the owners ... Bettman wants the players to be linked to that downward and fully expected result by both sides..

Yet by agreeing and sharing in the burden all the things that generate revenue moving forward like Ticket Prices, Big TV contracts, Revenue sharing, Marketing and promotion, or even team make-up that generate fan support and increase attendance are all out of their control and they have no say AND REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A CBA.. IMO ..

All they can do is agree to play for lower salaries in the future and score goals on the ice .. the rest is up to the owners to work out and LINKAGE to the players is a deal killer as I said because it holds them accountable for Owners business decisions which they do not control or as I pointed out are really not even NEGOTIATED in the CBA talks..

My Definition of LINKAGE

Isn't that like saying the players get 55% of Revenue of what we do in the future ..Sign here

..... but we have no idea what those decisions to create revenue are in the future nor do we want your opinion in the matter no less.

If we make bad decisions we want you guys to share in those mistakes financially and take less money to play the game so the losses are not coming out of our pockets alone.

The same analagy as the players signing a blank Check/Cheque and then the owners will fill the amount out in the future sometime as to how much this will cost them.

There is also a solution in all this to and as long as Bettman slaps the word LINKAGE and ties it to Revenue in any proposal the players have nothing to work with .. It creates further resolve and stops fans from watching the game they love ..

We all agree that the system needs to be fixed for all 30 teams .. but it is not only the players that need to fix it so the OWNERS can get rich at the expense of the players alone ..


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 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.