HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Isbister salary now up on NHLPA.COM

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-18-2004, 03:22 AM
  #51
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oh_canuck
Im not sure the flames could afford iginlas contract either after losing what 30 million over the last 5 years due to a lack of fan support.
You're right, they couldn't afford his contract. That's why they signed him to a 2 year, $13 million deal - which is accounted for in the budget. Now they're talking long-term for his next contract, likely at the salary he's currently receiving.

And lack of fan support? I'd say it's the opposite. Calgary's put up pretty respectable attendance figures throughout the non-playoff years, and have had very decent season ticket sales as well. I'd say if this is the kind of fan support we got during tough times, then Calgary is a hockey-mad city with a wide base of fans.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 03:23 AM
  #52
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
A CP'er, that figures.

Now run along and play with your little CP friends.
lol. Sour grapes?

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 04:28 AM
  #53
Jamie
Registered User
 
Jamie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 2,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
You're right, they couldn't afford his contract. That's why they signed him to a 2 year, $13 million deal - which is accounted for in the budget. Now they're talking long-term for his next contract, likely at the salary he's currently receiving.

And lack of fan support? I'd say it's the opposite. Calgary's put up pretty respectable attendance figures throughout the non-playoff years, and have had very decent season ticket sales as well. I'd say if this is the kind of fan support we got during tough times, then Calgary is a hockey-mad city with a wide base of fans.
Well he's right... and you're kind of avoiding the topic here. The Flames have been losing money for a while now, and as far as a business stand point goes, it was not a smart signing. The point of running is to make money, and they haven't been doing that. There's no denying that. Good attendance or not, they have been in the red, or at least they claim. I don't know how you can say they were able to afford it....

Jamie is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 02:00 PM
  #54
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
Well he's right... and you're kind of avoiding the topic here. The Flames have been losing money for a while now, and as far as a business stand point goes, it was not a smart signing. The point of running is to make money, and they haven't been doing that. There's no denying that. Good attendance or not, they have been in the red, or at least they claim. I don't know how you can say they were able to afford it....
I'm not sure why this is a hard concept. (I'm estimating) The Flames had a payroll of ~$34 mill in 2002/03, when Iginla was in the first year of his new contract. He was accounted for in this payroll. If the owners set aside this payroll for the players that play on the team, why would the Flames be losing money in that sense? If they meet the payroll guidelines, that's accounting for all player salaries.

So, the Flames lose money on Iggy's $7 million contract, but they don't on Turek's contract (before it was re-worked), or Connie's $2 million contract, or (at the time) Bougher's $2 million contract?

Iginla IS worth $7 million in today's NHL. That's why he was signed to that contract. Nobody thought Calgary could do it, but the owners put up the cash and saw it as a good, long-term investment.

2 years later, they couldn't be more right.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 02:53 PM
  #55
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Ice Cream Man]You're right, they couldn't afford his contract. That's why they signed him to a 2 year, $13 million deal - which is accounted for in the budget. Now they're talking long-term for his next contract, likely at the salary he's currently receiving.

QUOTE]

That is not what his agent said. He said that Iginla was the best player in the game and didn't want to turn it over to an arbitrator. No where has he said he is going to sign Iginla for what he makes now.

Here is the link, where he calls Iginla the best player in the game. If you can find me a like WHERE his agent has said he is going to agree with a contract that pays him the same as he is making now.

Sounds like to me that his agent thinks Iginla should be payed like the best player in the game. Do you have a quote from Meehan that shows otherwise?



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/shown...ntent=h071621A

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 03:25 PM
  #56
Jamie
Registered User
 
Jamie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 2,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
I'm not sure why this is a hard concept. (I'm estimating) The Flames had a payroll of ~$34 mill in 2002/03, when Iginla was in the first year of his new contract. He was accounted for in this payroll. If the owners set aside this payroll for the players that play on the team, why would the Flames be losing money in that sense? If they meet the payroll guidelines, that's accounting for all player salaries.

So, the Flames lose money on Iggy's $7 million contract, but they don't on Turek's contract (before it was re-worked), or Connie's $2 million contract, or (at the time) Bougher's $2 million contract?

Iginla IS worth $7 million in today's NHL. That's why he was signed to that contract. Nobody thought Calgary could do it, but the owners put up the cash and saw it as a good, long-term investment.

2 years later, they couldn't be more right.
You bring up Turek, who I agree is way over priced, but your argument is for Iginla. If anything the Turek argument goes to show that the Flame's may not be the best negotiators around. There wasn't a single team in the league that would've taken Turek and his contract without even having to give something in return. However, I'm not arguing that Iginla's contract is to high, because at the time he was signed, there were all sort's of stupid contracts getting thrown out, and small market Calgary couldn't just sign him to $3 million a year or anything. Iginla wanted the big money, case and point. The point I was trying to make though, is they have been losing money. Plain and simple. You can say it was in the budget, but if the team spent $4 million less dollars a season, even if it was allowed in the budget, that's $4 million more they have. Of course, you can get into the argument that fan's would have abondoned the Flames had they dealt Iggy, but if that's true, than Calgary is no better than any of the non hockey market team's in the States like Carolina and Anaheim.

Jamie is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 03:45 PM
  #57
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=spaz44]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
You're right, they couldn't afford his contract. That's why they signed him to a 2 year, $13 million deal - which is accounted for in the budget. Now they're talking long-term for his next contract, likely at the salary he's currently receiving.

QUOTE]

That is not what his agent said. He said that Iginla was the best player in the game and didn't want to turn it over to an arbitrator. No where has he said he is going to sign Iginla for what he makes now.

Here is the link, where he calls Iginla the best player in the game. If you can find me a like WHERE his agent has said he is going to agree with a contract that pays him the same as he is making now.

Sounds like to me that his agent thinks Iginla should be payed like the best player in the game. Do you have a quote from Meehan that shows otherwise?



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/shown...ntent=h071621A
I don't have a quote from Meehan that shows otherwise, 'cause Meehan's an ass and I don't disagree with you that he wants as much money for Iginla as possible, 'cause it means more money for him.

But just because Meehan says that Iginla may be the best player in the game, doesn't necessarily make him the best player in the game. I don't think he'll get a raise, and if he does, it'll be marginal. The uncertainty of the upcoming CBA negotiations, and the rumoured salary cap will definently play into what Sutter signs him for this summer.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to see any player signed to a $8 mill+ contract this summer. As much as Meehan wants to fling crap out of his ass, it doesn't change the fact the CBA agreement will be the most determing factor playing into contracts this summer, IMO.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 03:49 PM
  #58
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
If anything the Turek argument goes to show that the Flame's may not be the best negotiators around. There wasn't a single team in the league that would've taken Turek and his contract without even having to give something in return.
Actually, I do think the Flames (mainly Sutter) are one of the best negotiators around.

Sutter went to Turek's house, and when he left he came out with a new contract for Turek and $3.25 million in his hands. Absolutely brilliant, if you ask me.

He also managed to snag Regehr for 5 years at $12 million last summer. The guy is already our #1, and he's just gonna keep getting better. Another feather in the cap for Sutter.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 04:29 PM
  #59
Hemsky is a gangsta
Hemsky is a gangsta
 
Hemsky is a gangsta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,231
vCash: 500
re

Ice Cream Man is right. Iginla is worth 50 million dollars, Darryl Sutter is the smartest man in hockey, and even Trump isn't as rich as the Flames owners. Argument settled! Thankfully we could do this before another four pages of mindless debate, most of which doesn't effect fans!

Hemsky is a gangsta is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 04:32 PM
  #60
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quick
Ice Cream Man is right. Iginla is worth 50 million dollars, Darryl Sutter is the smartest man in hockey, and even Trump isn't as rich as the Flames owners. Argument settled! Thankfully we could do this before another four pages of mindless debate, most of which doesn't effect fans!
Thanks for your insightful contribution.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 06:31 PM
  #61
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,575
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
lol. Sour grapes?
LOL...hardly.
I do however frequent CP when I need a good laugh.

guymez is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 06:42 PM
  #62
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
LOL...hardly.
I do however frequent CP when I need a good laugh.
Not sure what's wrong with CP. It's a popular message board with intelligent posters and in-depth discussions. There's also some real trolls on that board, but it's not unlike any other board.

Not sure why you're elevating yourself above everyone else with a comment like 'I need a good laugh'. If you don't like that board, then don't frequent it. Otherwise, if you believe that you add value to conversation there, then contribute something intelligent, simple as that.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 07:41 PM
  #63
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
I don't have a quote from Meehan that shows otherwise, 'cause Meehan's an ass and I don't disagree with you that he wants as much money for Iginla as possible, 'cause it means more money for him.

But just because Meehan says that Iginla may be the best player in the game, doesn't necessarily make him the best player in the game. I don't think he'll get a raise, and if he does, it'll be marginal. The uncertainty of the upcoming CBA negotiations, and the rumoured salary cap will definently play into what Sutter signs him for this summer.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to see any player signed to a $8 mill+ contract this summer. As much as Meehan wants to fling crap out of his ass, it doesn't change the fact the CBA agreement will be the most determing factor playing into contracts this summer, IMO.
If he was going to sign for what he made last year why not just sign his qualifying offer and if Meehan if just going to sign Iginla for the same deal as last year, why would be bother spouting this and why hasn't a deal already been struck.

These are reasonable questions and I don't think you are going to have any easy answers.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 08:25 PM
  #64
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
If he was going to sign for what he made last year why not just sign his qualifying offer and if Meehan if just going to sign Iginla for the same deal as last year, why would be bother spouting this and why hasn't a deal already been struck.

These are reasonable questions and I don't think you are going to have any easy answers.
I believe every qualifying offer is a 1 year offer, is it not? Perhaps they're negotiating a longer term contract, and sorting out bonuses.

Iginla probably didn't accept the qualifying offer because of the above reason, and because Meehan may think he can get more money. Perhaps he can, but I don't see it being anywhere higher than a 500k-800k raise (bringing his total to somewhere between $7.5 and $7.8 mill).

I don't think he'll get a raise, and I predict Sutter will wait until some other big name RFA's are signed, just to see how the market plays out a bit more and see what the playing field is determined as.

Remember, Sutter has all summer to negotiate a new contract, possibly into the fall as well if there's no hockey. I believe he'll use this to his fullest advantage, and they'll settle on a salary at (or around) what he's making now. The CBA negotiations will end up playing a big role in the contract that Iginla signs.

If you think that Iginla will get paid more, please tell me as to why that is. I see the CBA being too important to Sutter to rush into signing Iginla to a contract with a significant raise over what he's making now.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 10:33 PM
  #65
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
I'm not sure why this is a hard concept. (I'm estimating) The Flames had a payroll of ~$34 mill in 2002/03, when Iginla was in the first year of his new contract. He was accounted for in this payroll. If the owners set aside this payroll for the players that play on the team, why would the Flames be losing money in that sense? If they meet the payroll guidelines, that's accounting for all player salaries.

So, the Flames lose money on Iggy's $7 million contract, but they don't on Turek's contract (before it was re-worked), or Connie's $2 million contract, or (at the time) Bougher's $2 million contract?

Iginla IS worth $7 million in today's NHL. That's why he was signed to that contract. Nobody thought Calgary could do it, but the owners put up the cash and saw it as a good, long-term investment.

2 years later, they couldn't be more right.
I hate to try to explain someone else's point, but I think the problem here is that you and Jamie are arguing different points. The Flames have done a good job of working within a budget, but I think Jamie's point is that the budget included operating at a loss, which is a questionable business practice. Maybe I've missed one or both of your points, but I think you are both right.

Allan is offline  
Old
07-18-2004, 11:45 PM
  #66
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,575
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
Not sure what's wrong with CP. It's a popular message board with intelligent posters and in-depth discussions. There's also some real trolls on that board, but it's not unlike any other board.
Never said that there weren't some intelligent posters on that board. Although it seems to have more than its fair share of the opposite.

Quote:
Not sure why you're elevating yourself above everyone else with a comment like 'I need a good laugh'. If you don't like that board, then don't frequent it. Otherwise, if you believe that you add value to conversation there, then contribute something intelligent, simple as that.
I have no control how you interpret a statement like "need a good laugh".
Also, I never said I didn't like the board. (but thanks for the advice)
You might say, I find the board entertaining at times. Especially the "over the top" hate they have on for the Oil and the HF boards.


Last edited by guymez: 07-19-2004 at 12:01 AM.
guymez is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.