HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

"Cap no good for fans"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2004, 06:50 PM
  #1
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
"Cap no good for fans, says expert"

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1044442957278

H/H is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 07:57 PM
  #2
oilers_guy_eddie
Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: This is Oil Country!
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 11,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Those who support a salary cap say it allows small-market teams to remain competitive against wealthy clubs. Ross counters it also penalizes smart businessmen who make good decisions.

"Yes, it does protect owners in advance from making really stupid decisions," said Ross.

But a salary cap can make it difficult for a team to rebuild, Ross said.

"What it also protects the owners against is an owner who could spend wisely on a new free agent who will put his team over the top. If a team has not been a contender recently, and they can spend more money to make more money, there should be no limit on their ability to do so."

Ross used the Vancouver Canucks as an example of an NHL team that turned itself around both financially and on the ice, through careful budgeting and smart player signings.
Huh? Who'd the Canucks sign? Messier?

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 08:16 PM
  #3
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
"It is very difficult to say this plan is going to be good for players."


One could say that having 30 financially stable teams, which provide over 700 well paying jobs with an average salary of $1.3M/year would be good for the players.

Much better than the average player sitting out for a full year and getting no money, or having fewer teams (and jobs) with teams folding every few years...

But of course, the owners aren't really losing money. They just thought it would be fun to alienate all of their fans because the game of hockey was getting too boring with all the clutching and grabbing, or because they want to make even more money, which is what obviously happens when you lock out players and alienate your fans...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 08:33 PM
  #4
Jack Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hawaii
Country: Canada
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
"It is very difficult to say this plan is going to be good for players."


One could say that having 30 financially stable teams, which provide over 700 well paying jobs with an average salary of $1.3M/year would be good for the players.

Much better than the average player sitting out for a full year and getting no money, or having fewer teams (and jobs) with teams folding every few years...

But of course, the owners aren't really losing money. They just thought it would be fun to alienate all of their fans because the game of hockey was getting too boring with all the clutching and grabbing, or because they want to make even more money, which is what obviously happens when you lock out players and alienate your fans...
This I totally agree with you on.

Jack Canuck is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 08:54 PM
  #5
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 133,199
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie
Huh? Who'd the Canucks sign? Messier?
And they got rid of him right?

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:47 PM
  #6
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
And they got rid of him right?
They've signed two or three guys a year. They've used free agents to fill specific needs. Almost all of them have been reasonably priced and every one of them was worth the money they paid. Cassels, LaChance, Baron, May, Arvedson and Linden were the key players.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 10:50 PM
  #7
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 17,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
They've signed two or three guys a year. They've used free agents to fill specific needs. Almost all of them have been reasonably priced and every one of them was worth the money they paid. Cassels, LaChance, Baron, May, Arvedson and Linden were the key players.

Tom
And of those, I'd say getting Linden back was the best thing they ever did, even if it did cost them a 1st rounder.

Wait...did I just talk HOCKEY? Sorry guys, my bad.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 01:59 AM
  #8
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
And of those, I'd say getting Linden back was the best thing they ever did, even if it did cost them a 1st rounder.

Wait...did I just talk HOCKEY? Sorry guys, my bad.
That year his contract expired. The Canucks resigned him to a three year deal. They did trade for him, but then signed him. In the sense we are discussing, he was a free agent.

He didn't really cost them a first rounder because it was Linden and Washington's second round pick for Vancouver's first. I can't remember what the exact difference in picks was, but the Canucks got Linden for dropping 15-20 places in the draft. From the mid twenties to the forty something. That's not very much.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 09:45 AM
  #9
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
One could say that having 30 financially stable teams, which provide over 700 well paying jobs with an average salary of $1.3M/year would be good for the players.

Much better than the average player sitting out for a full year and getting no money, or having fewer teams (and jobs) with teams folding every few years...

But of course, the owners aren't really losing money. They just thought it would be fun to alienate all of their fans because the game of hockey was getting too boring with all the clutching and grabbing, or because they want to make even more money, which is what obviously happens when you lock out players and alienate your fans...
Noting your sarcasm, please show how the owners overall are losing money.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 10:14 AM
  #10
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Noting your sarcasm, please show how the owners overall are losing money.
There are many sources stating that the owners have lost over $240M each of the last 2 seasons. If you choose to not believe the numbers being reported, nothing I could show you will make any difference.

If you were to go to Yahoo and do a search with the following words, you will see multiple sources...

financial losses NHL 2004

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 10:18 AM
  #11
s7ark
Moderator
Yoshi
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Noting your sarcasm, please show how the owners overall are losing money.

Please see the Levitt report

LINK

s7ark is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 10:23 AM
  #12
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark
Please see the Levitt report

LINK
Please see how the Levitt report fails to show anything of the sort:

linkage

and for more background reading...

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 11:32 AM
  #13
oilers_guy_eddie
Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: This is Oil Country!
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 11,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
They've signed two or three guys a year. They've used free agents to fill specific needs. Almost all of them have been reasonably priced and every one of them was worth the money they paid. Cassels, LaChance, Baron, May, Arvedson and Linden were the key players.

Tom

Well, I'm sure that jobbers will still be available under whatever CBA is worked out. And unless Goodenow wins big, they probably won't cost $2 mill a year either.

Quote:
"What it also protects the owners against is an owner who could spend wisely on a new free agent who will put his team over the top. If a team has not been a contender recently, and they can spend more money to make more money, there should be no limit on their ability to do so."

Ross used the Vancouver Canucks as an example of an NHL team that turned itself around both financially and on the ice, through careful budgeting and smart player signings.
Are the Canucks an example of a team that spent more money to make more money?

Hey, their payroll has gone up and their revenue has gone through the roof! So they must have, right? Well, no. Correlation does not imply causality (or however they phrase it in Logic 101).

The Canucks have assembled a successful team, and their revenues have skyrocketed as a result.
The Canucks have assembled a successful team, and their payroll has increased as a result. The increase in payroll has been a result of the collective success of the players, not vice-versa. Tampa Bay will follow the same pattern. The Devils and Nordiques are examples. On-ice success leads to higher payroll costs.

Can anybody help Dr Ross find an example of a team that "spent more money to make more money"? His notion that such a thing is even possible runs counter to what's been observed in the NHL, and most people who follow hockey agree, to some extent, that you can't build a winner by going out and spending money on free agents.

The best example of a team that has substantially improved its on-ice fortune (and theoretically, made more money) through a big free-agent signing is the Maple Leafs, whose acquisition of Curtis Joseph, then Ed Belfour, had a major impact on the team's performance. Aside from that, I'm having a hard time. Certainly most people who follow hockey would agree that spending your way to success has been a failure in most cases it's been attempted. I find this article rings a little hollow as a result.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 11:42 AM
  #14
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,532
vCash: 500
Notice how it's only Toronto and New York based papers that say cap is bad for the league and the fans? Larry Brooks, Al Strachan etc.

Pepper is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 12:06 PM
  #15
Brent Burns Beard
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Brent Burns Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Notice how it's only Toronto and New York based papers that say cap is bad for the league and the fans? Larry Brooks, Al Strachan etc.
a cap is bad for the fans and i dont live or work in toronto or new york.

dr

Brent Burns Beard is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 12:10 PM
  #16
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 22,857
vCash: 500
I don't live in Toronto or NY either. A hard cap would ruin the game of hockey as we know it.

MS is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 12:11 PM
  #17
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I don't think a cap will increase player movement. It will more than likely keep it stagnant or decrease it.

 
Old
09-25-2004, 12:24 PM
  #18
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
I don't think a cap will increase player movement. It will more than likely keep it stagnant or decrease it.

I guess you dont follow the NFL or NBA.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 12:50 PM
  #19
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
I don't think a cap will increase player movement. It will more than likely keep it stagnant or decrease it.
Very, very wrong. Just a look at the NBA, even star players get shuffled back and forward.

H/H is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 01:19 PM
  #20
oilers_guy_eddie
Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: This is Oil Country!
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 11,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by H/H
Very, very wrong. Just a look at the NBA, even star players get shuffled back and forward.
...and that hardly ever happens in hockey...

oilers_guy_eddie 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 05:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.