HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

What if the Owners...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2004, 09:39 AM
  #1
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
What if the Owners...

Simply took the players current proposal, and changed the length from 6 years to 2 years. Would the players still accept that?

Egil is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:43 AM
  #2
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
Simply took the players current proposal, and changed the length from 6 years to 2 years. Would the players still accept that?
Of course they wouldn't and neither would the owners.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:46 AM
  #3
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Why wouldn't the owners do this? They simply need to keep their spending in check for 1 year and get a 24% salary reduction. A 2 year deal was signed before (in 1992), so its not that far out their.

Egil is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:48 AM
  #4
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
Why wouldn't the owners do this? They simply need to keep their spending in check for 1 year and get a 24% salary reduction. A 2 year deal was signed before (in 1992), so its not that far out their.
The owners cannot go through this process again in two years. If they accept this bribe their widely based support will evaporate.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:56 AM
  #5
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
I have heard this argument before, but it doesn't make sense to me. The owners are going to LOSE their support by accepting a short term deal to save the season? I would think saving the season would earn them FAR more support than cancelling it....

Egil is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:59 AM
  #6
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
I have heard this argument before, but it doesn't make sense to me. The owners are going to LOSE their support by accepting a short term deal to save the season? I would think saving the season would earn them FAR more support than cancelling it....
Yes, because their support is based on a desire to see the systemic problems addressed.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:04 AM
  #7
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
Why wouldn't the owners do this? They simply need to keep their spending in check for 1 year and get a 24% salary reduction. A 2 year deal was signed before (in 1992), so its not that far out their.
Because that 24% salary reduction is a myth. The majority of players contracts expire at the end of this season. IIRC just over 120 players will have contracts at the end of this season. Serious salary escalation can take place immediately because of the number of players not under contract. The number of holdouts that could take place could cripple the game just as badly as the lockout has and force the owners to spend all that money they just got back.

(BTW... you are aware that the players under contract have already essentially lost 50% of their pay for this season, meaning a 25% loss of salary over this year and next?)

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:24 AM
  #8
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Yeah, but players losing 24% of their salary affects Qualifying offers and arbitration. The salaries will go back up, at about the 10% or per year they went up under the current CBA (quite possibly even 15% this offseason). But it certainly isn't an instantaneus thing. And with such a high % of player contracts tied to their previous years salary, or what other signed players are making, the 24% rollback would affect future player earnings. Not enough to make it worth the owners while in a 6 year deal, but over 2? Maybe.

BTW, I'm almost positive the players would NOT agree to their proposal with a 2 year term instead of 6.

Egil is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:30 AM
  #9
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil


BTW, I'm almost positive the players would NOT agree to their proposal with a 2 year term instead of 6.

Of course they wouldn't, since they offer was designed to trade 2 years of pain for 4 years of gravy.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:37 AM
  #10
TOGLIATTI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Is this so hard?

I am really getting tired of all this. "HARD CAP!!!!!!!" "GREEDY PLAYERS!!!!" I think this could all be solved if the owners and managers just follow a basic principle that anybody can learn by ready any of multiple economics texts. If you cant afford it, DONT BUY IT!!!!!!!!! New York Rangers anyone?? Here is how much we have to spend; here are the players we can afford. If a team is losing money, it is their own fault. Does it work to lump up a team with huge contract players? Where was Colorado this year? Who in their right mind would send themselves deeper into debt by signing Peter Forsberg (who is injured most of the time, doesn’t consider the NHL his career, and would rather become a clothes model for Swedish Men) to an 11 million dollar deal? Just use some common sense. The Sergei Fedorov deal is a classic example. Carmonos offers this HUGE contract, knowing Detroit will match it, just to bloat the team salary of long time Minor League rival Mike Ilitch. Another example is Detroit. Why on earth did they sign Brett Hull to that kind of contract????? The owners got themselves into this. Bettman is pushing for a hard cap to protect the owners from themselves.

TOGLIATTI is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:41 AM
  #11
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGLIATTI
I am really getting tired of all this. "HARD CAP!!!!!!!" "GREEDY PLAYERS!!!!" I think this could all be solved if the owners and managers just follow a basic principle that anybody can learn by ready any of multiple economics texts. If you cant afford it, DONT BUY IT!!!!!!!!! New York Rangers anyone?? Here is how much we have to spend; here are the players we can afford. If a team is losing money, it is their own fault. Does it work to lump up a team with huge contract players? Where was Colorado this year? Who in their right mind would send themselves deeper into debt by signing Peter Forsberg (who is injured most of the time, doesn’t consider the NHL his career, and would rather become a clothes model for Swedish Men) to an 11 million dollar deal? Just use some common sense. The Sergei Fedorov deal is a classic example. Carmonos offers this HUGE contract, knowing Detroit will match it, just to bloat the team salary of long time Minor League rival Mike Ilitch. Another example is Detroit. Why on earth did they sign Brett Hull to that kind of contract????? The owners got themselves into this. Bettman is pushing for a hard cap to protect the owners from themselves.
this isnt news and the owners know it. however, there has never and will never be a better chance to get their cost certainty so they will stop at nothing to get it.

how sad for the future of teams like EDM, CGY, OTT and VAN.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:43 AM
  #12
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
this isnt news and the owners know it. however, there has never and will never be a better chance to get their cost certainty so they will stop at nothing to get it.

how sad for the future of teams like EDM, CGY, OTT and VAN.

dr

:lol

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:44 AM
  #13
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGLIATTI
The owners got themselves into this. Bettman is pushing for a hard cap to protect the owners from themselves.
Exactly and the owners will spend each other to bankcrupty if there's no system which prevents owners from spending too much which escalates the salaries leaguewide so that even the responsible GMs will suffer.

So the league will continue the lockdown as long as players get the point.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:45 AM
  #14
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
this isnt news and the owners know it. however, there has never and will never be a better chance to get their cost certainty so they will stop at nothing to get it.

how sad for the future of teams like EDM, CGY, OTT and VAN.

dr
On the contrary, a new CBA on owners terms will ensure that those mentioned teams can compete each on regular basis without having to fear big teams poaching their stars.

Then again, you already knew it since you have been explained that 1000 times but you were just being sarcastic there.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:46 AM
  #15
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Exactly and the owners will spend each other to bankcrupty if there's no system which prevents owners from spending too much which escalates the salaries leaguewide so that even the responsible GMs will suffer.

So the league will continue the lockdown as long as players get the point.
hey, let them spend each other into bankruptcy... why do you care ? OTT was so upside down in debt that their new owner got them for a song and the team is now well set financially.

same for BUF and VAN.

the NHL wont die in the city, just that owner.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:49 AM
  #16
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
hey, let them spend each other into bankruptcy... why do you care ? OTT was so upside down in debt that their new owner got them for a song and the team is now well set financially.

same for BUF and VAN.

the NHL wont die in the city, just that owner.

dr
It should be now obvious to everyone how clueless some of you pro-PA yahoos look. Posts like that are the constant reminder why majority of fans see the light and don't support the players.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:50 AM
  #17
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
On the contrary, a new CBA on owners terms will ensure that those mentioned teams can compete each on regular basis without having to fear big teams poaching their stars.

Then again, you already knew it since you have been explained that 1000 times but you were just being sarcastic there.
pepp ...

i dont see a cap helping CGY and EDM and VAN and OTT. but you were just being sarastic since its been explained to you 1000 times.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:51 AM
  #18
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
It should be now obvious to everyone how clueless some of you pro-PA yahoos look. Posts like that are the constant reminder why majority of fans see the light and don't support the players.
why do you care if some rich jerk spends himself into bankruptcy ?

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:01 AM
  #19
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
It should be now obvious to everyone how clueless some of you pro-PA yahoos look.
Pro-PA yahoos?

You're the one who has proven himself a liar.

How come the pro-PA yahoos don't have to lie to get their point across?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 07:48 PM
  #20
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,300
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Pro-PA yahoos?

You're the one who has proven himself a liar.

How come the pro-PA yahoos don't have to lie to get their point across?
They've got a point? Where

me2 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 01:51 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.