HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

The Present Tense Only Ensures Future Failure

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2003, 04:03 PM
  #26
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrie
A fantastic idea .... IF you are just starting the league. However, this won't work for two reasons;
1. Try and convince the owners to sell their franchise to be part of a greater company (the NHL) for $1. It's not going to happen.
2. The NHLPA will NOT agree to a hard cap (or so they claim). The players, under this agreement would not get any of the profits that the division (team) makes; this leads to very unmotivated or very angry employees.

P.S. Good idea on paper though.
I guess I kind of glossed over some things since I have typed this out before several times.
1. In return for giving up their ownership they would each own 1/30th of the mothercorp and have the right to sell their governorship for any amount they can get for it so ownership would not be an issue.

2. Hard cap? There is no hard cap. There is a budget and if you don't want to work for Wal-Mart at what they are offereing go apply at Sears. The salaries would be high enough to ensure that the league held on to its position as the number one league in the world. That's all. That is what is known as competition. Just not with each other. If the players are unmotivated or angry they can try and get hired somewhere else. I hear the Russian Super League is hiring.

Under the current system the players are getting all of the profits making for unmotivated and angry owners (and fans).

Just a thought.

theoil is offline  
Old
10-31-2003, 04:51 PM
  #27
oilflash
Registered User
 
oilflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: smalltownAB
Country: Canada
Posts: 130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrie
I would like to point out that this is the most intelligent thread I have seen at HFBoards since I joined here about a year ago. So far in this thread, economics, business, human resources, and some very creative writing has been posted.

I am very new around here and just figuring out how things work ... had to take break there to satisfy some goblins, Madona, and a tiny alien with goodies ... oh by the way happy pumpkin day ... as soon as I read the first post by Oyler I knew this was the hockey talk place for me. Theoil your post is very thoughtful and creative too!

oilflash is offline  
Old
11-01-2003, 04:58 AM
  #28
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
I guess I kind of glossed over some things since I have typed this out before several times.
1. In return for giving up their ownership they would each own 1/30th of the mothercorp and have the right to sell their governorship for any amount they can get for it so ownership would not be an issue.

2. Hard cap? There is no hard cap. There is a budget and if you don't want to work for Wal-Mart at what they are offereing go apply at Sears. The salaries would be high enough to ensure that the league held on to its position as the number one league in the world. That's all. That is what is known as competition. Just not with each other. If the players are unmotivated or angry they can try and get hired somewhere else. I hear the Russian Super League is hiring.

Under the current system the players are getting all of the profits making for unmotivated and angry owners (and fans).

Just a thought.
First off, I like your idea. It's fairly well thought through. The only reason I am "arguing" it is just to be the devil's advocate.
  1. Hard to argue. I'm sure there is some sort of problem with it though .
  2. "Just not with each other. If the players are unmotivated or angry they can try and get hired somewhere else. I hear the Russian Super League is hiring." I can argue here. I sincerely think that the NHL can ill afford to be competing for players. What do you think drives up player salaries? Competition. Look what happened back in the 70s with the WHA. They offered more money to the players, so they went to the WHA; in turn, the NHL offered more money to its players to retain their rights. So, creating competition would bite the NHL in their bum (censored).

    Also, if some players (for arguments sake, say 10% of the players) decide to join the RSL or the SEL, then the NHL has lost about 70 players (I believe there are around 700 players in the NHLPA). That's not a lot of players, but when you consider it, that is enough to ice 3 teams. With the talent level already in question in the NHL, I would certainly argue that the NHL cannot afford to be battling with the RSL and SEL for quality hockey players.

H-Bear is offline  
Old
11-01-2003, 08:15 PM
  #29
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrie
First off, I like your idea. It's fairly well thought through. The only reason I am "arguing" it is just to be the devil's advocate.
  1. Hard to argue. I'm sure there is some sort of problem with it though .
  2. "Just not with each other. If the players are unmotivated or angry they can try and get hired somewhere else. I hear the Russian Super League is hiring." I can argue here. I sincerely think that the NHL can ill afford to be competing for players. What do you think drives up player salaries? Competition. Look what happened back in the 70s with the WHA. They offered more money to the players, so they went to the WHA; in turn, the NHL offered more money to its players to retain their rights. So, creating competition would bite the NHL in their bum (censored).

    Also, if some players (for arguments sake, say 10% of the players) decide to join the RSL or the SEL, then the NHL has lost about 70 players (I believe there are around 700 players in the NHLPA). That's not a lot of players, but when you consider it, that is enough to ice 3 teams. With the talent level already in question in the NHL, I would certainly argue that the NHL cannot afford to be battling with the RSL and SEL for quality hockey players.

Ah, we're not arguing, just swapping ideas. I agree with you that the WHA is what caused salaries in the NHL to start to climb but I would argue that they were semi-successful because the player's own union boss was collaborating with the league's owners to keep salaries below market value. Right now the NHL has the best talent in the league because they average $40 some million in payroll per year. The next competitor (and I got this info from somebody on this site a few months ago) is the Russian Super League where 2 teams are getting close to $20 million per year but the average is probably closer to $12 to $15. There is a lot of room between those two averages to maintain your competitive advantage. Staying ahead of the second best league should be the competition that drives salaries. Right now the analogy is more like the Canadian Tire on Kingsway is stealing employees from the Canadian Tire in the west end by raising their salaries by 50%. In other words the competition financially should not be inhouse. And if the RSL thinks they can sustain a $40 million dollar payroll then the NHL has to go higher or become second class. I don't see that in any near future scenario so drop the average payroll to $30 - $35 million and maintain your status and make some money.

theoil is offline  
Old
11-02-2003, 06:03 AM
  #30
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Ah, we're not arguing, just swapping ideas. I agree with you that the WHA is what caused salaries in the NHL to start to climb but I would argue that they were semi-successful because the player's own union boss was collaborating with the league's owners to keep salaries below market value. Right now the NHL has the best talent in the league because they average $40 some million in payroll per year. The next competitor (and I got this info from somebody on this site a few months ago) is the Russian Super League where 2 teams are getting close to $20 million per year but the average is probably closer to $12 to $15. There is a lot of room between those two averages to maintain your competitive advantage. Staying ahead of the second best league should be the competition that drives salaries. Right now the analogy is more like the Canadian Tire on Kingsway is stealing employees from the Canadian Tire in the west end by raising their salaries by 50%. In other words the competition financially should not be inhouse. And if the RSL thinks they can sustain a $40 million dollar payroll then the NHL has to go higher or become second class. I don't see that in any near future scenario so drop the average payroll to $30 - $35 million and maintain your status and make some money.
What I'm most affraid of in your plan is not that a league like the RSL will come in and swoop away the league, but that it will come in a swoop away the elite talent. In order for the RSL to gain credibility, it needs to grab some marquee players and sign them to big buck contracts; much like the WHA did with Hull (or was it Howe, if forget?) and Gretzky. This would mean that players like Mogilny, Ovechkin, and Bertuzzi (just to name a few) could all be snatched away by the competing league(s). In a league that most teams only has one or two elite players, this could be devastating. Imagine Calgary without Iginla, Edmonton without Smyth, Minnesota without Gaborik, Atlanta without Kovalchuck; there would be some very shoddy hockey clubs out there. Decrease in quality = decrease in interest = lots and lots of financial problems.

H-Bear is offline  
Old
11-02-2003, 07:04 AM
  #31
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrie
What I'm most affraid of in your plan is not that a league like the RSL will come in and swoop away the league, but that it will come in a swoop away the elite talent. In order for the RSL to gain credibility, it needs to grab some marquee players and sign them to big buck contracts; much like the WHA did with Hull (or was it Howe, if forget?) and Gretzky. This would mean that players like Mogilny, Ovechkin, and Bertuzzi (just to name a few) could all be snatched away by the competing league(s). In a league that most teams only has one or two elite players, this could be devastating. Imagine Calgary without Iginla, Edmonton without Smyth, Minnesota without Gaborik, Atlanta without Kovalchuck; there would be some very shoddy hockey clubs out there. Decrease in quality = decrease in interest = lots and lots of financial problems.
Well, the RSL did grab some talent this year. Teverdosky is playing there and somebody else I think. They went, of course, because nobody in the NHL wanted them at anywhere near what they could get in the RSL. That is how capitalism works. My point is that the NHL should be competing against other leagues financially not feeding on itself. I am not at all concerned that the RSL or anybody else can come in and create a league with a billion dollar budget (30 teams x $35 million payroll) overnight. And if they were to pick off a couple of players like Iginla or Gaborik they would self-destruct like the WHA did - not enough revenue to pay guys like that. I am not saying to not raise wages - just do it like Sears does it when they compete against The Bay. Not one Sears store against another.

theoil is offline  
Old
11-02-2003, 02:33 PM
  #32
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Well, the RSL did grab some talent this year. Teverdosky is playing there and somebody else I think. They went, of course, because nobody in the NHL wanted them at anywhere near what they could get in the RSL. That is how capitalism works. My point is that the NHL should be competing against other leagues financially not feeding on itself. I am not at all concerned that the RSL or anybody else can come in and create a league with a billion dollar budget (30 teams x $35 million payroll) overnight. And if they were to pick off a couple of players like Iginla or Gaborik they would self-destruct like the WHA did - not enough revenue to pay guys like that. I am not saying to not raise wages - just do it like Sears does it when they compete against The Bay. Not one Sears store against another.
You are right, the WHA did self destruct. However, it took, what? Nine or ten years? I don't think the NHL, and in particular, the smaller market teams can compete with another league for however long it takes for the competition to bow out. The NHL cannot afford the money, nor can it afford to lose talent (whether it be marginal or elite).

H-Bear is offline  
Old
11-02-2003, 02:39 PM
  #33
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrie
You are right, the WHA did self destruct. However, it took, what? Nine or ten years? I don't think the NHL, and in particular, the smaller market teams can compete with another league for however long it takes for the competition to bow out. The NHL cannot afford the money, nor can it afford to lose talent (whether it be marginal or elite).
Well, the only thing I know of that will keep talent from defecting is wages higher than anyone else will pay. That, of course, is what the NHL does. We would still be much higher than anyone else with average payrolls of 33-35 million/team. Much higher than that and the NHL cannot afford itslelf which is what we are currently witnessing so I am not certain what your objection is.

theoil is offline  
Old
11-02-2003, 04:23 PM
  #34
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
The Super league could NEVER afford to pay guys 5-6 million bucks. Just won't happen. I think the league would survive just fine if the cap was at 40. The biggest thing is an equalization of currency plan. The NHL already has something like it, but it doesn't make a big enough difference. It needs to about double or tripple the amount of money that the Oilers would get. I think if team payrolls are anywhere from 25-40, the league will be very healthy and would be able to get Quebec and Winnipeg teams again. Teams such as Nashville and that where the interest just flat out, plain and simple is not there don't need to be around.

thome_26 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 01:53 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.