The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
These guys got OLD!! If Maltby, Draper, and Osgood were that good they would have had offers from other teams that they could not have turned down.
Getting old happens, and just because they expressed an interest in playing doesn't mean the team should keep them. At some point you have to bring in fresh blood.
I love this post for some reason
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987
I seriously doubt the NHL will play less than 48 games. It looks like the season is very close to being completely cancelled. What a bunch of morons.
That's not for us to decide though. Players think Fehr has given them the best chance to win. right or wrong.
He probably has, it just depends what you call winning. Taking the owners offer for 82 games would have been best deal financially for the Players, it just seems they are fighting for something else than pure hard cash.
Yes really. No doubt. Why? because even before locking the doors the league knew what it would and wouldn't give up. That won't have changed except for the worse now that revenues are being missed and damage to the game is being done.
What Fehr proposed doesn't come out of the players share. It is a way to limit how much money they pay into escrow. If enough money hasn't been paid into escrow to cover the difference between 50% and what they actually made do you think the players are going to say "oh sorry about that, let me write you a cheque to make up the difference." not going to happen, instead it will allow the players to take home more than 50%. Not to mention that an artificially high cap will draw money paid to the players up (cap is a magnet) and that coupled with escrow will all but guarantee more than 50%. Not to mention the other ways of trying to do an end run around the intent of the system such as mid-level exemptions etc. If the PA wants to propose a different way to ensure 50% no more no less then do so. They haven't. 30 cancelled games and they haven't done that with Fehr in the room (they did with just players and owners in the room). With Fehr they have said 50% plus this plus that plus this other thing....
Bob MacKenzie on the radio today said exactly that. What the PA is calling 50% isn't really 50% at all not even close.
he also went into the different philosophies. The PA is stuck in the mode of comparing what they are offered to what was in the last CBA. The league is essentially making a budget like any business would...with no real concern on what came before. And honestly, this is a business negotiation and the players need to start leaving the emotions out of things and realize that this is new negotiation and based on the financials they need to make a deal they feel is fair. next time will be the same thing. If there are 24 healthy teams next time then they will likely get a better deal because there is no business advantage to the owners to shut down. The fact the NHL hasn't gone hat in hand to the PA after losing 30+ regular season games tells you that there are not 8 teams upset with what is going on. That should be reinforcement on what the players witnessed when talking to the moderates to get a deal done. Finally agree to full linkage and see what falls out of that (of course they did so until they let Fehr back in the room).
Yes it was a scheme. But one agreed to by the clubs because ultimately they wouldn't be paying the 75% they were paying. This time around they have decided they don't want that esepcially not since they have increased pensions, increased revenue sharing and agreed to some degree of "make whole". The PA ran the well of goodwill dry and they ran it dry a hell of a lot sooner then they would have with a leader like Kelly at the helm. The PA likes to whine and cry about how they are treated and how the NHL does this and does that but turfs the leader that was actually helping change that. They are reaping what they sowed and will never ever recover the money they've lost.
The NBA and NHL are different leagues, with different needs that will require different solutions.
Have a link to what Fehr proposed on cap escrow?
Gary Bettman can't have it both ways.
Quote:
For the first time, Bettman publicly alluded to the deals the N.F.L. and N.B.A. owners secured last year, when players agreed to substantial across-the-board salary cuts after the leagues locked them out.
“I’m not sure that there’s yet been a recognition of the economics in our world, and I mean the greater world and the sports industry, taking into account what recently happened with the N.F.L. and the N.B.A.,” Bettman said of the union proposal.
“Players in other industries and other sports have recognized the need to make adjustments,” Bettman said. “We’re hoping that ultimately the union here will be in a position to focus on things the same way.”
The NBA deal included a 2 year transition period. The cap remained at $58,044,000 for 2 years. Cap on escrow. One amnesty buyout per team. The biggest change in the NBA CBA was higher luxury taxes which don't begin until year 3 of the CBA. Why is Gary insisting on a $60M cap in year 2? No transition period. The NHL is proposing players making above $105,000 playing in the AHL count against the cap. Many teams will stripped bare with a $60M cap in year 2.
The pension? The players are funding the pension.
Quote:
But Fehr said negotiations are further ahead than they were a week ago, despite talks collapsing, and that a tentative agreement on a pension plan to be funded by the players as well as discussions on money issues are largely done, with the exception of transition payments.
Revenue sharing is for the teams. The NHLPA wants more revenue sharing than the $200M-$220M proposed by the NHL. That's to help the smaller market teams. The NHL should be looking to increase it by themselves than rather have the PA demand they increase it. The PA proposed $240M.
No they were not entirely bad. However those signings with Campbells crazy ass deal meant that Chicago was in cap hell. They likely could have saved 1.5-2m if it hadn't been for that RFA situation. Not a lot of money, but it would have helped them out a lot at the time.
That may be the problem. In a cap league the only way for a team to get a leg up and make a run is to land themselves in "Cap Hell". Otherwise they are forced to roll the dice and hope their equal players beat the other team's equal players. That's why owners try to circumvent the cap now. It is really the only way they can effect their own outcome. Not a great business model and not a great product that I wish to buy.
That may be the problem. In a cap league the only way for a team to get a leg up and make a run is to land themselves in "Cap Hell". Otherwise they are forced to roll the dice and hope their equal players beat the other team's equal players. That's why owners try to circumvent the cap now. It is really the only way they can effect their own outcome. Not a great business model and not a great product that I wish to buy.
It's a fine business model if you don't mind seeing your GM having to compete on a level playing field with all of the other GMs.
That may be the problem. In a cap league the only way for a team to get a leg up and make a run is to land themselves in "Cap Hell". Otherwise they are forced to roll the dice and hope their equal players beat the other team's equal players. That's why owners try to circumvent the cap now. It is really the only way they can effect their own outcome. Not a great business model and not a great product that I wish to buy.
Are you a hockey fan or not? Or are you just a Red Wings fan that has no interest in hockey now that the wheels have come off the Detroit bandwagon? I'm not flaming here but you keep saying you don't want to watch hockey anymore so it makes me question what perspective you're coming from.
Are you a hockey fan or not? Or are you just a Red Wings fan that has no interest in hockey now that the wheels have come off the Detroit bandwagon? I'm not flaming here but you keep saying you don't want to watch hockey anymore so it makes me question what perspective you're coming from.
Please. Do you follow all thirty teams. I'm a Rangers fan first. Always. I assume you are a Caps fan. I gain nothing from any of this. He doesn't like watching mediocre teams with holes all over. Neither do I or many who don't post here.
40 games is below the 48 remark Gary Bettman himself has already stated...
And it has already been reported the 48 games would be all in conference.
Bettman has no power according to some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSnow
He probably has, it just depends what you call winning. Taking the owners offer for 82 games would have been best deal financially for the Players, it just seems they are fighting for something else than pure hard cash.
Please. Do you follow all thirty teams. I'm a Rangers fan first. Always. I assume you are a Caps fan. I gain nothing from any of this.
If the only hockey around is a bunch of guys playing skiffle on a frozen lake I'll watch. My watching hockey isn't dependent on the Caps playing. Hell, I spent most of the morning watching a Habs game from the '70s on You Tube. I naturally gravitate to my favorite team but if they aren't on I'm still watching hockey. I'm not interested in seeing the Caps screw over the rest of the league just to get a Cup either.
Hockey 1st.
My favorite teams a distant 2nd.
My favorite players a distant 3rd.
Are you a hockey fan or not? Or are you just a Red Wings fan that has no interest in hockey now that the wheels have come off the Detroit bandwagon? I'm not flaming here but you keep saying you don't want to watch hockey anymore so it makes me question what perspective you're coming from.
Yes I am a hockey fan. I am a fan who has supported the league with my hard earned dollars and I am pissed. The Wings won the Cup as recently as 2008 and they did it with a one line team, a hot goalie and the best blueliner in the game. The rest of the team was pretty forgettable. While losing Lidstrom leaves a big hole it isn't sour grapes. The Wings probably won't be a last place team in the coming years. They just aren't going to be a good team. Each and every year since the cap they have become a little less talented and a little more like every other team in the league. Less good. In a word, parity. So now the best franchises in the league are just like the worst or at least that's the end goal. We are fortunate in Detroit because we have an owner committed to winning. He has done a brilliant job at hiring quality people and arming them with the resources to build and market a great product. The best GMs, coaches, scouts, ect.. His product sells but in a cap league he can no longer apply the resources to make his team any better than all the others. The cap model is so even the worst franchise gets to have the Cup for a year. How do you get excited that your team won a championship when they are exactly like everyone else? It was their turn. Simply the last average team standing. It cheapens the championship. Now we get a second lost season? Why would I want to support this league with my money?
Yes I am a hockey fan. I am a fan who has supported the league with my hard earned dollars and I am pissed. The Wings won the Cup as recently as 2008 and they did it with a one line team, a hot goalie and the best blueliner in the game. The rest of the team was pretty forgettable. While losing Lidstrom leaves a big hole it isn't sour grapes. The Wings probably won't be a last place team in the coming years. They just aren't going to be a good team. Each and every year since the cap they have become a little less talented and a little more like every other team in the league. Less good. In a word, parity. So now the best franchises in the league are just like the worst or at least that's the end goal. We are fortunate in Detroit because we have an owner committed to winning. He has done a brilliant job at hiring quality people and arming them with the resources to build and market a great product. The best GMs, coaches, scouts, ect.. His product sells but in a cap league he can no longer apply the resources to make his team any better than all the others. The cap model is so even the worst franchise gets to have the Cup for a year. How do you get excited that your team won a championship when they are exactly like everyone else? It was their turn. Simply the last average team standing. It cheapens the championship. Now we get a second lost season? Why would I want to support this league with my money?
Why would you get excited by having your team get a Cup by something as tawdry as merely buying it? Wouldn't give ME any satisfaction. I'd get satisfaction and excitement by having my team win a cup with smart drafting, good player development, and astute trades. NOT by something so low-grade as throwing money at it.
Yes I am a hockey fan. I am a fan who has supported the league with my hard earned dollars and I am pissed. The Wings won the Cup as recently as 2008 and they did it with a one line team, a hot goalie and the best blueliner in the game. The rest of the team was pretty forgettable. While losing Lidstrom leaves a big hole it isn't sour grapes. The Wings probably won't be a last place team in the coming years. They just aren't going to be a good team. Each and every year since the cap they have become a little less talented and a little more like every other team in the league. Less good. In a word, parity. So now the best franchises in the league are just like the worst or at least that's the end goal. We are fortunate in Detroit because we have an owner committed to winning. He has done a brilliant job at hiring quality people and arming them with the resources to build and market a great product. The best GMs, coaches, scouts, ect.. His product sells but in a cap league he can no longer apply the resources to make his team any better than all the others. The cap model is so even the worst franchise gets to have the Cup for a year. How do you get excited that your team won a championship when they are exactly like everyone else? It was their turn. Simply the last average team standing. It cheapens the championship. Now we get a second lost season? Why would I want to support this league with my money?
Funny how during the 08 and 09 cup runs all I heard was how superior the Wings were to the Pens as an organization. How the Pens were only good because they tanked and the Wings were the best team at drafting developing and building from within. They didn't need to buy Expensive UFA's all their talent was homegrown.
Sure but wouldn't the players try to do everything they can to make the most they can too? Why should they just cave to the demands of owners just because the owners made bad investments?
I think the players should negotiate the best deal possible with the owners. I think the owners should negotiate the best deal possible with the players. I don't think either side will be "caving" because the end result would be to have a successful league. And that's supposedly what both sides are after, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch
That's not for us to decide though. Players think Fehr has given them the best chance to win. right or wrong.
Well, I'd agree that they at one point certainly thought he would give them the best chance to win. But that was then and this is now and they need to look at how much more they're willing to lose and if it's worth it for what they stand to gain. Right now I think they're giving up a lot more than they stand to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro
The Wings probably won't be a last place team in the coming years. They just aren't going to be a good team. Each and every year since the cap they have become a little less talented and a little more like every other team in the league. Less good. In a word, parity.
Maybe they need to look more at drafting good players and stocking the farm like other successful teams have done. Work within the system. Other teams have done it, why can't Detroit? It's not the system's fault if Detroit management has apparently lost its grasp on how to build a winning team (at least, that's the impression I'm getting from your posts).
Why would you get excited by having your team get a Cup by something as tawdry as merely buying it? Wouldn't give ME any satisfaction. I'd get satisfaction and excitement by having my team win a cup with smart drafting, good player development, and astute trades. NOT by something so low-grade as throwing money at it.
I agree. The league is on a more level playing because of the cap. This means that the league is more competitive, and there are more cup contenders. Which means the cup is harder to win now than it was before the cap. Trying to argue that it meant more to win the cup in a less competitive era, is completely backwards.
Maybe they need to look more at drafting good players and stocking the farm like other successful teams have done. Work within the system. Other teams have done it, why can't Detroit? It's not the system's fault if Detroit management has apparently lost its grasp on how to build a winning team (at least, that's the impression I'm getting from your posts).
Since 2006 The Red Wings have:
2 First round losses (06 to Edmonton, 12 to Nashville)
2 second round losses (10 and 11 to San Jose)
1 third round loss (07 to Anaheim)
1 fourth round loss (09 to Pittsburgh)
1 Cup (2008)
They have done admirably. He's just a fairweather fan.
Funny how during the 08 and 09 cup runs all I heard was how superior the Wings were to the Pens as an organization. How the Pens were only good because they tanked and the Wings were the best team at drafting developing and building from within. They didn't need to buy Expensive UFA's all their talent was homegrown.
Let's talk about how Pittsburgh only shows when they have 2 top 3 players. Leafs have been a piece for much of 45 years and that place is full.
It's been widely remarked upon. Just today I heard Darren Dreger, Bob Mackenize and Pierre LeBrun talk about it.
Quote:
Gary Bettman can't have it both ways.
A different solution to common issues isn't having it both ways.
Quote:
The NBA deal included a 2 year transition period. The cap remained at $58,044,000 for 2 years. Cap on escrow. One amnesty buyout per team. The biggest change in the NBA CBA was higher luxury taxes which don't begin until year 3 of the CBA. Why is Gary insisting on a $60M cap in year 2? No transition period. The NHL is proposing players making above $105,000 playing in the AHL count against the cap. Many teams will stripped bare with a $60M cap in year 2.
Again a different solution to common issues isn't having it both ways. Common issue, different leagues, different solutions.
Quote:
The pension? The players are funding the pension.
First we don't really know how it will be paid for or what the agreement the players and owners had (Before Fehr stepped back into the room...by the way I believe nothing of what Fehr says given he has misrepresented every single one of his offers). And given the players asked for it can they then whine about it afterwards?
Quote:
Revenue sharing is for the teams. The NHLPA wants more revenue sharing than the $200M-$220M proposed by the NHL. That's to help the smaller market teams. The NHL should be looking to increase it by themselves than rather have the PA demand they increase it. The PA proposed $240M.
The PA hasn't even commented on it since August by and large. IN the very first offer the NHL gave they increased revenue sharing from the previous CBA. The PA wanted more and the NHL increased it further. Just because the PA proposed $240 INITIALLY doesn't mean they get $240. THey got more. The NHl moved very close to their position.
Quote:
Got anything else?
Don't think I need anything else because, quite frankly, you got nothing.
Why would you get excited by having your team get a Cup by something as tawdry as merely buying it? Wouldn't give ME any satisfaction. I'd get satisfaction and excitement by having my team win a cup with smart drafting, good player development, and astute trades. NOT by something so low-grade as throwing money at it.
These never happen anymore because of the cap. Trade deadline used to be a holiday for me.
If the only hockey around is a bunch of guys playing skiffle on a frozen lake I'll watch. My watching hockey isn't dependent on the Caps playing. Hell, I spent most of the morning watching a Habs game from the '70s on You Tube. I naturally gravitate to my favorite team but if they aren't on I'm still watching hockey. I'm not interested in seeing the Caps screw over the rest of the league just to get a Cup either.
Hockey 1st.
My favorite teams a distant 2nd.
My favorite players a distant 3rd.
I like winning. I don't care how its done, because I don't care about other teams.
I love this post for some reason
