View Single Post
Old
09-12-2004, 11:03 AM
  #52
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
What if for most owners, an NHL franchises is just a toy. They are rich & successfull & when they takeover the team all they want to do is having fun with it & winning. The team would just be a PR showing to show that they can afford a BIG TOY like an NHL team..
That is a big if. Do you know for a fact that most owners treat their team like a toy? If a handful of owners do treat their team like a toy, why do the rest of the owners have to lose money because of the ones that want to treat their teams as toys? If most of the owners did treat their teams as toys, we wouldn't be having a lock out, would we? All the owners would be sitting in front of their fireplaces, drinking their 30 year old scotch, laughing about how much they lost each year. I don't get the impression they are doing anything like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Also YOU NAILED IT , if the owners would have put their best managements staff like they did with their ''REAL'' companies, we wouldn't talk about the CBA because it would have been renewed..
Do you work in a large company? Or more specifically, do you work for a company that is a reletively small part of a large conglomorate? I do. Do you know how often every company of a conglomerate is audited each year to ensure good business decisions are being made? Do you know how quickly the CEO's of these conglomerates want changes when any company under them is losing money? Even when they are making record profits, large conglomerates want every business unit making a profit. While there is little doubt some teams are not managed well, that is a conscious decision by the head of that conglomerate. Most however, would be expected to follow good business practices.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
No i'm not, this CBA has 10 YEARS OLD & the owners in concert with the GM, starting reading it after 8 YEARS !!! Does that sound good management to you ? Does ot sound like the best MINDS of hockey was on it ? .
You have sat in on meetings with the NHL executives over the previous 10 years and this is why you know that the GM's didn't read the CBA for the first 8 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
For the first 8 YEARS of the actual CBA, not a single GM's thought about the advantages a franchise is having in that CBA. They start thinking about it when they were in a dangerous financial situations. Does that sound good management to you ? Does ot sound like the best MINDS of hockey was on it ? .
Again, you know what the best minds in hockey were thinking? Please teach me how you do this mind reading trick...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
While maybe this is where you can blame the PLAYERS for this but the NHLPA took what they had on their side & used it to get good contracts. THIS IS GOOD MANAGEMENTS, THIS IS GOOD ACCOUNTABILITY. NHLPA did their homework with the CBA starting in 1994 while the NHL owners/gm sleep on it until 2002 & manage their with business as usual.

You seem to think you are much smarter than all the owners and GM's in the NHL. Why don't you go to their next board meeting and tell them how easily you can fix all their problems so we can have hockey this season...

Where the owners did screw up is not putting something in place in the last CBA to keep every owner from making decisions that was bad for the league, things like raising individual team salaries and accepting huge losses. This is bad for all the other teams in the NHL that can't accept those losses, but have to field a competetive team. Should they have been smart enough to anticipate that some owners would do this in the future? Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of easy to sit here now and look back how things could have been done better.

djhn579 is offline