HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Spector: Don't get greedy, Gary (IOW if you get 50-50, give on contract details)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 08:44 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,629
vCash: 500
Spector: Don't get greedy, Gary (IOW if you get 50-50, give on contract details)

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l..._mark_spector/

Quote:
Three league executives contacted Monday all gave the same general answer when we asked why Gary Bettman should care how the players' money gets split up, as long as he gets them to 50-50 with the players.

To a man, the three voices echoed the same sentiment (and we paraphrase): "Get rid of the back-diving contracts, because those work against the spirit of the cap. After that, player contracting rights matter very little to me."

Somehow, commissioner Bettman and his deputy Bill Daly have made it their quest not just to get the players to a 50-50 share of Hockey Related Revenues, but also to dictate when a player can become a free agent, when he qualifies for arbitration, how long he can sign for, what colour his car should be, what he should name his dog…
...
The rest of the hockey world sees it as a sign of unparalleled greed by the owners.
...
"You can't idiot proof anything," an agent said. "I'm sick of the teams coming back to the players and saying, 'Please save us from ourselves. The 30 of us general managers can't control our spending, so you have to help us because we can't help ourselves.'"

A third agent said two things we found interesting:

"Agents aren't really agents anymore. We're allocators. You can't agent the way we used to agent," he said.

And this: "The league has gotten younger. Now they want the young to make less."

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:58 PM
  #2
hbk
Registered User
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,607
vCash: 500
I love how the agent uses the ostrich argument that we don't need to idiot proof the cba and close the loopholes. No vested interest there whatsoever.

hbk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:25 PM
  #3
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
I love how the agent uses the ostrich argument that we don't need to idiot proof the cba and close the loopholes. No vested interest there whatsoever.
He didn't say that you don't 'need' to idiot proof, he says that you CAN'T idiot proof anything meaning that people will just find new ways to gain a competitive advantage when in contract negotiations.

Maybe the other parts of contracting rights are things the league will willingly give up pursuit so long as they get what they want to prevent backdiving contracts. If that's the game plan, the league needs to make it seem like they value each and every one of those issues and will relent on some of them in order to get the ones they deem the most important.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:26 PM
  #4
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 767
vCash: 500
This is my favorite part:

Quote:
When the Dallas Stars are forced to spend more on Jamie Benn because of the Hall and Eberle deals, it may throw off GM Joe Nieuwendyk's salary structure a tad. But if owner Tom Gaglardi has set his budget, signing Benn shouldn't force him to spend above that budget.

If making profits in shaky hockey markets like Dallas is as important to everybody as Bettman states that it is, Gaglardi should spend within his financial means and stick with his proposed salary budget.



So he thinks it perfectly okay for Dallas to exist as a feeder team for the rest of the NHL.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:28 PM
  #5
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Even people on Gary Bettman's side no longer know what they're fighting for.

Good question. If they get their cost certainty lowered, what more could Gary possibly want at the league level?

Quote:
Perhaps it is a snapback from all those previous CBAs in which Bettman failed to close enough loopholes to keep salary escalation from occurring.
Remember when it used to be all about salary escalation? About trying to put the brakes on all the elements that sent player salaries skyrocketing? Remember the term, "inflationary spending?"
All of that disappeared when the owners so famously got "cost certainty" in the last lockout. This time they're poised to get that cost certainty down to 50 per cent of HRR. They had slain the dragon that was salary escalation, and in fact, the reason the cap rose to $70 million was because the business was so strong.

And their spending will STILL be inflationary. They slew one dragon that prevented small teams from overspending, ostensibly because they knew they couldn't compete for top talent, and created another dragon that forces those same teams to spend 2x over the previous level while having grown revenues at some anemic rate. This time, they're throwing that inflationary raise at mid and lower level players because the big stars all try to flee to the contending markets anyway, leaving their money in search of mandatory home.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:30 PM
  #6
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
This is my favorite part:

So he thinks it perfectly okay for Dallas to exist as a feeder team for the rest of the NHL.

You know why it's one my favorite parts? Because it makes business sense that business control their OWN spending instead of being forced by a central planning committee to throw it away.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:30 PM
  #7
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
This is my favorite part:

When the Dallas Stars are forced to spend more on Jamie Benn because of the Hall and Eberle deals, it may throw off GM Joe Nieuwendyk's salary structure a tad. But if owner Tom Gaglardi has set his budget, signing Benn shouldn't force him to spend above that budget.

If making profits in shaky hockey markets like Dallas is as important to everybody as Bettman states that it is, Gaglardi should spend within his financial means and stick with his proposed salary budget.




So he thinks it perfectly okay for Dallas to exist as a feeder team for the rest of the NHL.

That is precisely the issue I have with people who say 'well don't spend what you can't afford'. Whether there's a cap or not, there will be teams that will spend more than they can guarantee themselves in profits but if a small or struggling market wants any chance to thrive, they need to make investments in the talent to bring people through the doors. If you're going to point the gun at every team that signs a player at a contract that they can't necessarily afford and ignore the fact that teams need to assess what they need to be competitive (which in turn will likely grow interest in the team), then you might as well just say that you're perfectly fine with the Stars and Panthers of the league, drafting and developing young talent just so richer teams can take them off their hands when these players hit their primes and are ready for big contracts.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:31 PM
  #8
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
He didn't say that you don't 'need' to idiot proof, he says that you CAN'T idiot proof anything meaning that people will just find new ways to gain a competitive advantage when in contract negotiations.

Maybe the other parts of contracting rights are things the league will willingly give up pursuit so long as they get what they want to prevent backdiving contracts. If that's the game plan, the league needs to make it seem like they value each and every one of those issues and will relent on some of them in order to get the ones they deem the most important.

Hey, there's a lockout right now. Why not, you know, just ask for that one piece? No, that would be too easy. Let's play coy. Maybe the players will invent something to take from us, so we'd better prepare for the windmill attacks now.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:35 PM
  #9
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
That is precisely the issue I have with people who say 'well don't spend what you can't afford'. Whether there's a cap or not, there will be teams that will spend more than they can guarantee themselves in profits but if a small or struggling market wants any chance to thrive, they need to make investments in the talent to bring people through the doors. If you're going to point the gun at every team that signs a player at a contract that they can't necessarily afford and ignore the fact that teams need to assess what they need to be competitive (which in turn will likely grow interest in the team), then you might as well just say that you're perfectly fine with the Stars and Panthers of the league, drafting and developing young talent just so richer teams can take them off their hands when these players hit their primes and are ready for big contracts.

Here we go again.

Dallas has no choice with a cap range system. Whether that money goes towards a Weber or some also-ran, or whatever liner..... they will have to spend between IN THE RANGE.

Are you actually suggesting that that wasn't happening during the most recent CBA? Brad Richards anyone?

Name one top free agent Dallas or any team not in the NE US/Canada quadrant, plus the traditional markets was able to attract.

One. Name.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:37 PM
  #10
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You know why it's one my favorite parts? Because it makes business sense that business control their OWN spending instead of being forced by a central planning committee to throw it away.
... ya but'ya see Fugu, that just makes too much sense & reverses the onus of responsibility on managerial recruiting & orginizational talents.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:44 PM
  #11
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
That is precisely the issue I have with people who say 'well don't spend what you can't afford'. Whether there's a cap or not, there will be teams that will spend more than they can guarantee themselves in profits but if a small or struggling market wants any chance to thrive, they need to make investments in the talent to bring people through the doors. If you're going to point the gun at every team that signs a player at a contract that they can't necessarily afford and ignore the fact that teams need to assess what they need to be competitive (which in turn will likely grow interest in the team), then you might as well just say that you're perfectly fine with the Stars and Panthers of the league, drafting and developing young talent just so richer teams can take them off their hands when these players hit their primes and are ready for big contracts.
There are a couple problems here-

1) With where Gary has put a number of teams, those cities can't support franchises that can compete with the bigger ones. That's a league problem. Trying to fix that problem by creating others is the completely wrong approach. Either move teams to better markets or fix the problem with those franchises individually. Dallas used to be a lucrative market. What happened?

2) While some owners can grow the game, others might just suck at their job. How does this fit into the structure? You shouldn't let New York or Montreal sign a player for 7 years because idiot owner in Timbuktoo doesn't know how to run his business?

It's not black and white as just limiting contracts to what's affordable to the entire league. Bad ownership will rear it's head in other places.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:49 PM
  #12
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,010
vCash: 50
I don't think any change except the 5% year to year salary variation ceiling is needed.

At some point GMs have to make decisions and live with them. Restricting RFA leverage to make it easier to lock up young players at a salary that is way below what they are 'worth' isn't a good system. And I certainly wouldn't want more of the salary pie to go to UFAs. They already make too much.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:51 PM
  #13
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Here we go again.

Dallas has no choice with a cap range system. Whether that money goes towards a Weber or some also-ran, or whatever liner..... they will have to spend between IN THE RANGE.

Are you actually suggesting that that wasn't happening during the most recent CBA? Brad Richards anyone?

Name one top free agent Dallas or any team not in the NE US/Canada quadrant, plus the traditional markets was able to attract.

One. Name.
Jagr?

shortshorts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:53 PM
  #14
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
There are a couple problems here-

1) With where Gary has put a number of teams, those cities can't support franchises that can compete with the bigger ones. That's a league problem. Trying to fix that problem by creating others is the completely wrong approach. Either move teams to better markets or fix the problem with those franchises individually. Dallas used to be a lucrative market. What happened?

2) While some owners can grow the game, others might just suck at their job. How does this fit into the structure? You shouldn't let New York or Montreal sign a player for 7 years because idiot owner in Timbuktoo doesn't know how to run his business?

It's not black and white as just limiting contracts to what's affordable to the entire league. Bad ownership will rear it's head in other places.
I spoke to the simplicity of an argument of 'don't spend what you can't afford' and I'm only suggesting that the situation is a bit more complex than that simple thinking. Not sure how your response is even relevant to what I said.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:54 PM
  #15
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,208
vCash: 500
As usual, a reasonable and defensible position (the owners should relent on contract issues since they're getting their 50/50) is taken a bridge too far by an agent whose ONLY interest is in seeing players make maximum coin. Screw the league's long-term vision for market growth, right? Let's put the strategic planning in the hands of player-side interests, who have managed so many successful corporate ventures in other areas.

I'm sure Bettman is very interested in what Mark Spector has to say about internal budgeting priorities.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:55 PM
  #16
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Jagr?
Semin?

There weren't exactly a ton of top free agents this summer...

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:58 PM
  #17
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Jagr?
Jagr is no where near the dominate player he once was. Would not call him "top" player.


As for Semin -- lots of question about his commitment/passion. Skill, of course; but can he perform.


And thinking back a few years... The Sharks were in on Niedermayer when he left NJ; but could not match the ability to play with brother. Hull actually contacted the Sharks about player there (before he signed with Detroit); but the Sharks ownership could not come up with $$ to bring him in (they were on budget).

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:59 PM
  #18
hbk
Registered User
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
He didn't say that you don't 'need' to idiot proof, he says that you CAN'T idiot proof anything meaning that people will just find new ways to gain a competitive advantage when in contract negotiations.

Maybe the other parts of contracting rights are things the league will willingly give up pursuit so long as they get what they want to prevent backdiving contracts. If that's the game plan, the league needs to make it seem like they value each and every one of those issues and will relent on some of them in order to get the ones they deem the most important.
The old CBA had obvious loopholes that can and should be fixed; regardless of what other loopholes may be out there.

hbk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:05 PM
  #19
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
The old CBA had obvious loopholes that can and should be fixed; regardless of what other loopholes may be out there.
Yes but his use of the word can't rather than need could suggest that his argument is that the league doesn't have to go to such lengths to fool proof something that can't be fool proof because people will come along and find some new and creative way of getting around it. If he had said there's no need, then I would say that he's suggesting that there aren't loopholes to be fixed. As an agent, I'm sure he probably wants those loopholes kept open because it's better for his clients and in turn better for himself. However, I'm just trying to give due to what the agent said rather than assume the worst and twist it into something that may not be an accurate picture of what he intended to say.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:10 PM
  #20
PCooper
Registered User
 
PCooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Jagr is no where near the dominate player he once was. Would not call him "top" player.

As for Semin -- lots of question about his commitment/passion. Skill, of course; but can he perform.

And thinking back a few years... The Sharks were in on Niedermayer when he left NJ; but could not match the ability to play with brother. Hull actually contacted the Sharks about player there (before he signed with Detroit); but the Sharks ownership could not come up with $$ to bring him in (they were on budget).
Ray Whitney?

Bad UFA year to use as an example, but Dallas signed two of the more sought-after forwards this summer.

PCooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:10 PM
  #21
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,323
vCash: 500
Where were these types of articles when the players felt they had the rights to dictate how much teams should spend on GMs, player development, scouting, etc etc.

Even revenue sharing really is none of the players business but they have stuck their noses in that.

Lets be honest, unlike the author, both sides are doing it.

Kirk Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:16 PM
  #22
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
I spoke to the simplicity of an argument of 'don't spend what you can't afford' and I'm only suggesting that the situation is a bit more complex than that simple thinking. Not sure how your response is even relevant to what I said.

No, you didn't. You took a basic tenet of business management and tried to obfuscate with layers of irrelevant emotion-based 'arguments'. "We don't want our team to be a feeder to the big clubs, so let's screw up the league's economics some more."

Fact is, which you are still avoiding that no elite player chose to sign with these teams under a cap system.

Colorado and Dallas were top hockey markets that the cap system helped to kill. (Dallas got some help from Hicks, but they were sliding before his mess too.)

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:16 PM
  #23
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Here we go again.

Dallas has no choice with a cap range system. Whether that money goes towards a Weber or some also-ran, or whatever liner..... they will have to spend between IN THE RANGE.

Are you actually suggesting that that wasn't happening during the most recent CBA? Brad Richards anyone?

Name one top free agent Dallas or any team not in the NE US/Canada quadrant, plus the traditional markets was able to attract.

One. Name.
Well, yeah. UFA's aren't exactly cheap now thanks to back loaded contracts and gigantic signing bonuses. These contract rights changes are meant to change that.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:17 PM
  #24
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Jagr is no where near the dominate player he once was. Would not call him "top" player.


As for Semin -- lots of question about his commitment/passion. Skill, of course; but can he perform.
Of course you're right on both counts, but the Parise/Suter package was the only UFA deal of the summer that was clearly at a higher level. Who's the next one, Olli Jokinen?

Really, the biggest signing of the season was the Weber RFA deal.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:18 PM
  #25
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Where were these types of articles when the players felt they had the rights to dictate how much teams should spend on GMs, player development, scouting, etc etc.

Even revenue sharing really is none of the players business but they have stuck their noses in that.

Lets be honest, unlike the author, both sides are doing it.

That's not true either. It's the NHL that put Revenue Sharing into the CBA. Goodenow told them back then that how much revenue they choose to share can be left out of CBA.

You know why I think the league did it? It was the only way Bettman could get the big boys to actually play along and keep playing along. It's not a player problem.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:22 PM.

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.