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.

What is the NHLPA thinking?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-02-2004, 11:18 PM
  #51
jcpenny
Registered User
 
jcpenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,878
vCash: 500
For guys like Dagenais cap or no cap makes no difference. He'll still be a low paid nhler. Whats good about a cap is that players will have to earn the big bucks i insist on the word EARN.

jcpenny is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 11:25 PM
  #52
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 17,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
A hard cap just seems such an obvious easy answer. Dagenais changed his mind.
If he's changed his mind about a cap, why did he refuse to answer 3 separate questions about whether or not he still would play under one?

On some things he may have changed his mind, but IMO this isn't one of them.

Lots of fire and brimstone from this meeting as was expected, we'll see how it goes when the euphoria dies down and the reality of another pay period going by the wayside sinks in.

IMO Goodenow's meeting with the agents will be much more interesting. They're not in it for the agents that come after them, they're into the MONEY their clients bring in. And unlike the majority of players, they know how to crunch numbers.

Will they quite happily sit for 2 years while their clients lose money that they will never be able to recoup? I guess we'll find out.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 11:28 PM
  #53
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
I dont think the main problem in this CBA is that players arent earning their contracts. That may be a problem for some of the teams that tried to buy a cup, but its not really a systemic problem with the CBA. A cap is not going to stop teams signing players to contracts and then finding they didnt get the success with those players they thought. They will still be stuck with them.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 11:36 PM
  #54
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
IMO Goodenow's meeting with the agents will be much more interesting. They're not in it for the agents that come after them, they're into the MONEY their clients bring in. And unlike the majority of players, they know how to crunch numbers.

Will they quite happily sit for 2 years while their clients lose money that they will never be able to recoup? I guess we'll find out.
I dont think the players are as ill informed as you suggest. But the agents would seem to be in a tough spot. THey will want to advise their clients for what is in their personal best interest. Which for some will be different from the collectives interest.

Even though Dagenais now likely understands the consequences of the cap, and what the issues are and the perspective they are seen in, when push comes to shove, his personal situation if replacements players are used will be difficult still. He will be in a very difficult spot with tough no-win choices. But the majority of players cant sacrifice their wishes to meet his needs, sympathetic as they may be.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 11:38 PM
  #55
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 33,637
vCash: 500
The players are NOT the product, and that's the beauty of the NFL. The NFL is about the Raiders, the Chiefs, the Rams, the Colts, the Dolphins, the Giants, the Bears. It doesn't even matter what city name you place in front of it. The team nickname is the recognition factor above all.

And I don't think the players are the product in the NHL, either. At least, not in some parts of the league and, if done right, not anywhere. Say you were to put replacement players in the NHL. It's Saturday night, 7pm ET and the Maple Leafs are playing in Montreal against the Canadiens? Does anybody REALLY care who is on the ice for each club? Hell, some of the best regular-season games between the two teams over the years were when at least one of them stank. Same can be said of the Islanders-Rangers match-up and others.

Oh sure, a Carolina-Calgary game is a tough sell but it's a tough sell in the current climate even with the NHL regulars.


As for the thinking that there is no more greatness in the NFL, well that's a bunch of bull. As has already been pointed out above, the Patriots are close to reaching dynasty status in the league. In fact, NO team in major North American pro sports has been as successful as New England lately, not even the Yankees with their luxury-tax induced roster. Plus, there are also individual stars born every week, guys like Ben Roethlisberger and Byron Leftwich and Andre Johnson, etc. AND, unlike Major League Baseball, the stars of the NFL aren't limited to just 2 franchises!

Quotes from Pro Football Weekly are nice, but I think a quote from the NFLPA head is more important...and if Troy Vincent says the cap works for the players that's good enough for me. As if the players don't benefit from a league-wide successful NFL. Come on now!

Jag68Sid87 is online now  
Old
11-03-2004, 12:00 AM
  #56
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Does anyone really care who is on the ice?? Well we obviously see things quite differently then. I think you will one day change your perpective on this. I think your anger is clouding your better judgement. These fans saying they will enjoy watching replacements will buy tickets once or twice out of spite, but will quickly regret that. I cant see how real fans can say that but thats just me.

Vincent is an exec on his union. Im sure he is defensive about criticisms of it. He seems to suggest no one is unhappy, but that is clearly not true.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 12:10 AM
  #57
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios
And yet it is by far and away the most profitable and stable sporting league in North America, if not the world. To say that it promotes mediocrity is a load of crap, the author is simply lamenting that a team cannot build a team just because it has alot of money, which is exactly what they are looking to prevent in the NHL. If the league is so mediocre, the games are so boring and all the drama is gone than why is it that stadiums are full for every game? Why is it that so many people watch on TV? To say that the NFL has descended to mediocrity because of a cap is ludacris.
Fully agree- as ridiculous a statement as i've seen on these boards.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 12:11 AM
  #58
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Im not saying it. People involved in the NFL, their fans and media are saying it. That what all these articles are. I dont see how you can just dismiss them all.

I think they raise some good points. You may choose to define a great league as the one that generates the most profits for its owners, but i dont.

NFL Cap promotes mediiocrity
If only the NHL was this bad.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 12:15 AM
  #59
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Does anyone really care who is on the ice?? Well we obviously see things quite differently then. I think you will one day change your perpective on this. I think your anger is clouding your better judgement. These fans saying they will enjoy watching replacements will buy tickets once or twice out of spite, but will quickly regret that. I cant see how real fans can say that but thats just me.

Vincent is an exec on his union. Im sure he is defensive about criticisms of it. He seems to suggest no one is unhappy, but that is clearly not true.
I will not pay NHL money to watch replacements. I'll give you that.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 12:20 AM
  #60
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
NFL is profitable because it is football and America. NFL was very popular before the cap. The cap has not generated the popularity for the NFL. The NFL would be popular no matter what. You are confusing their popularity and profitability with the nature of the system. But they were just as popular if not more without it. THeir next TV deal is predicted to be lower too.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 01:14 AM
  #61
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
NFL is profitable because it is football and America. NFL was very popular before the cap. The cap has not generated the popularity for the NFL. The NFL would be popular no matter what. You are confusing their popularity and profitability with the nature of the system. But they were just as popular if not more without it. THeir next TV deal is predicted to be lower too.
I did not say the cap had anything to do with popularity.You presented an argument that the cap worked against the NFL, turned it into mediocrity. It has never been healthier and is competitive. That is not a bad business to be in.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 10:33 AM
  #62
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
THeir next TV deal is predicted to be lower too.
Predictions are a funny thing... and as long as the networks can charge $3mil for a 30 second commercial during the superbowl (roughly $400 million from commercials alone during the course of the game), it will remain a multi-billion $ deal.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 10:36 AM
  #63
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Vincent is an exec on his union. Im sure he is defensive about criticisms of it. He seems to suggest no one is unhappy, but that is clearly not true.
So let me get this straight - The NHLPA is a very informed union, where the heads look out for every player to form a deal that will not only benefit the union, but the league, and the game.

The NFLPA is full of idiots who don't know what they are doing, and are lying because they don't want to look like morons for making a bad deal.

That's some pretty sad justification.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 01:21 PM
  #64
Cully9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
They have plenty of leverage because they are the product. Without the players the owners don't get over $2B in revenues.
Or the $2.3B in expenses.

Cully9 is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 01:40 PM
  #65
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 33,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Does anyone really care who is on the ice?? Well we obviously see things quite differently then. I think you will one day change your perpective on this. I think your anger is clouding your better judgement. These fans saying they will enjoy watching replacements will buy tickets once or twice out of spite, but will quickly regret that. I cant see how real fans can say that but thats just me.
Well, if the choice is:

A) shell out $75-100 to watch a trap-infested NHL, where the star players max out at 40 goals and 90 points because of the lack of flow and offensive enforcement in the league, and where many of the stars are also out of the lineup because of countless injuries--because the league fails to crack down on the perpetrators,

OR

B) spend $35-40 to watch no-names play their hearts out for the jersey I grew up adoring...

I think it's a no-brainer. If the owners keep the same ticket prices and replace the players with no-names, then they haven't learned a thing in this entire process. However, for less money, I'm sure I'm not alone in being at least curious to see how an NHL littered with replacement players would look like.

Oh, and let's not forget that some of these replacement players would be those Europeans who were booted out of elite leagues overseas because the locked-out NHLers are acting like replacement players themselves. So, guys like Corey Hirsch would be replacement players. Not exactly a Hall-of-Famer but also not a scene out "Slap Shot" either.

So, to answer your question...in today's NHL, I really don't care about who's wearing the uniform. If this was NHL hockey when I grew up (late 70s-early 80s), then that's a different matter altogether. I used to think the players made the league, but the trap, defensive hockey, size of the players, size of goaltending equipment and general coaching tactics everywhere changed all that.

Jag68Sid87 is online now  
Old
11-04-2004, 10:06 PM
  #66
xtremeleafan
Registered User
 
xtremeleafan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 23
vCash: 500
Gary Bettman Salary Cap Opinion

Just to stir things up a bit I'll copy a unauthorized quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA." Interesting, wouldn't you say ?


Last edited by xtremeleafan: 11-04-2004 at 10:13 PM.
xtremeleafan is offline  
Old
11-05-2004, 11:27 AM
  #67
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 3,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtremeleafan
Just to stir things up a bit I'll copy a unauthorized quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA." Interesting, wouldn't you say ?
Well, in case you didn't know this is all about money, owners feel that they can squeeze more profits out of the this. Generally, a 5% profit of revenues a year is considered acceptable, 10% good. Alas, if NHL is 2 billion industry with 30 franchises, owners should be happy with making 3,33 mil per team. That's not so hard to achieve, if you get more revenues or can't pay less for other workers than hockey players, how hard it is just not to pay for that arrogant 2nd liner what he asks for and tell him to go ask Rangers for that kind of money.

This mess is all because of owners, maybe NHL should institute a cap ruling that an individual franchise can't spend more than their individual franchise's revenues are (or whatever the owner want's to spend on his hobby).

I just wish that they would stop complaining, each team would stick to their budget, spend whatever they think they can afford, and START PLAYING the best hockey in the world!

gary69 is online now  
Old
11-07-2004, 10:40 AM
  #68
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
An owner of a $100mil franchise making as much as Holik is making good money, especially if the franchise value is also rising.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
So let me get this straight - The NHLPA is a very informed union, where the heads look out for every player to form a deal that will not only benefit the union, but the league, and the game.

The NFLPA is full of idiots who don't know what they are doing, and are lying because they don't want to look like morons for making a bad deal.

That's some pretty sad justification.
Clearly I am not saying that. Each union is looking out for its best interests. The reason a cap works in the NFL and the union wants it is because it allows them to share in the windfall tv contract and revenue sharing. The NFL isnt succesful and not whining because of the cap, its because of the extraordinary revenue sharing. Thats what makes it succesful. But even still, the cap, as outlined by many of these links, is causing problems in the eyes of fans, media, and people in the NFL. If they NFLs next tv cotnract is dropped in half, and the tv money no longer covers payroll, will everything be so rosy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by xtremeleafan
Just to stir things up a bit I'll copy a unauthorized quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA." Interesting, wouldn't you say ?
I'd say that is a very interesting quote indeed. I didnt realize that I agreed with Bettman so much.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-08-2004, 09:31 AM
  #69
chara
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtremeleafan
Just to stir things up a bit I'll copy a unauthorized quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA." Interesting, wouldn't you say ?

Those are sarcastic comments directed at owners who didn't let Bettman finish his job in 94-95 when he wanted a salary cap. They shouldn't complain about the CBA that they persuaded Bettman to accept. From day one, he has always been pro-salary cap

Bettman was hired by the owners to do what his mentor, NBA commish David Stern, did for the NBA --- break the union and bring in a salary cap and expand the league.
To those who think Bettman has done a lousy job, he's only doing what the owners have expected of him. That they didn't have the stomachs for it in 1994, is their fault and not his.

chara 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 03:10 PM.

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.