Goodenow: It's Over
View Single Post
01-22-2005, 04:33 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Originally Posted by
No, Kariya was required to get a 10% increase under his qualifying offer. Thus Anaheim had not been paying him the salary which they would have had to pay him the following year.
It was a poor initial business decision that was aggravated past the team's ability to compensate by the strictures of the CBA. It was the CBA that forced the Ducks to offer Kariya a 10% raise or cut him loose, Kodiak. The only business decision they had was whether or not to pay what the CBA required of them in order to keep their bigest star and most popular player.
You're simply wrong in this point. Qualifying offers are only 110% for players under the league average salary. Players over the average salary receive qualifiers of 100%. If you don't believe me, check out the old CBA
: Article 10.2(b)(ii)(A) and (B). I'm not going to quote it because the language is, of course, dense and convoluted.
So my point still stands. Anaheim could afford $10 mil for Kariya in worse times. They were not forced into giving him any raise by the CBA. They were only forced to qualify him at his previous salary which they freely gave to him.
We simply disagree here. The CBA should indeed protect teams from their own foolishness. In doing so it fosters a healthier, more competitive league.
I don't see how a fool-proof system helps the league in the long run. How would the NHL ever get rid of poor (substantially, not economically) owners? But I'll agree to disagree.
That's exactly what I'm saying because attendance revenues are not sufficient to pay the bills. Television contracts and broadcasting rights are what allow large market teams to support themselves economically. The Rangers earn orders of magnitude more money from their MSG televising revenues than they do from gate receipts. The Lightning will never earn enough in their limited market (even including broadcasting revenue) to keep their team together under the pressures of free agency. The Oilers couldn't do it when times were far better financially than they are now, when players were earning a significantly smaller percentage of the income pie.
I was not posting attendance figures as the be all end all of revenue. I was posting attendance figures because they are indicative of demand. Increased demand leads not just to increased ticket sales, but increased ticket prices, more ad revenue, better TV deals, more and better corporate sponsorship, and so on. Corporations who buy ad space and luxury suits and provide sponsorships want to be associated with a winner. Quality management can parlay increased fan support into a variety of new revenue streams.
As for Edmonton, I'm not making the argument that the current system is ideal and should not be changed. Teams or in trouble for a number of reasons. They are in nontraditional markets and still trying to grow a fanbase. They have poor management. They have poor arenas. They have greater tax burdens. Some teams are legitimately crippled through no fault of their own, and those teams should be aided by the new CBA. The argument I am attempting to make is that many of the large markets and small markets are not set in stone.
I'd want to see proof of that other than the vague assertions of your prior post. (For starters I take real issue with your characterization of Philly as NOT a hockey town before Lindros arrived. Living there, are you honestly claiming that Lindros made hockey popular in that city?)
Proof of what, exactly? Show me some instances in which a big market team was built predominately out of big name free agents and found success that way. These big market teams started as rebuilt, homegrown clubs that found success and then added big names to continue their success.
And honestly, I've never been impressed with Philly as a "hockey town." It's always been Eagles far and away #1, Sixers #2, and Flyers a distant 3rd, even when the Flyers are good and the Sixers are bad. If this teams drops off for a significant period of time, you'll see attendance and revenue drop drastically.
Non-topical. Those 20 years of history weren't being run under these economic circumstances or, to put this more in your court, under this CBA. I'll be honest, I can't even remember what the conditions of arbitration and free agency were like in the 20 years prior to this CBA. I suspect they were more restrictive to the players and more financially beneficial to the owners, thus reducing or eliminating many of the current problems of the league.
That's not the point. Your point was that the fact that the same teams were winning each year was indicative of the competitive imbalance. I was pointing out that such occurences are par for the course in the NHL.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Kodiak