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.

The Line Has Been Drawn. Choose Your Side!

View Poll Results: Are You Pro Owners or Pro NHLPA??
Owners All The Way Baby! Let's Have a Cap Or Tax! 127 82.47%
I Vote NHLPA! Open Market (with a few concessions) 27 17.53%
Voters: 154. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-08-2004, 09:37 PM
  #1
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
The Line Has Been Drawn. Choose Your Side!

NHLPA side - No Cap or Luxury tax. 100% Open Market, but a few concessions on Rookie salary etc.

NHL Owners side - Cap or Luxury Tax. Nothing but!

I want to see the numbers on both sides.

What will it be?

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 09:45 PM
  #2
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Tough call, but I am inclined to side with the owners...there are very valid arguements for both sides... but at the end of the day, I see the owner as the guy with all the risk of running a business like this that can make a little money, or lose alot.

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 10:17 PM
  #3
Rand
Registered User
 
Rand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
Neither.

Rand is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 10:26 PM
  #4
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
I'll vote with the players, who actually seem like they care about starting the season on time and are bringing somthing to the table.


I could care less who "wins" the upcoming CBA. I just want the season to start on time .

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 10:27 PM
  #5
Teemu
Moderator
 
Teemu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Palatine
Country: United States
Posts: 20,409
vCash: 500
I swear its the last time Ill agree with Wirtz

Teemu is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 10:29 PM
  #6
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand
Neither.
Sorry I forgot to add that option.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 11:18 PM
  #7
hotgoalie11565
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Farmington, Minnesota
Posts: 123
vCash: 500
Both sides are to blame for this one. On one hand the players want to keep getting the same amount of money as they have been for the past few years. The only problem is that as we all know, players' salaries take up about 75% of the teams' operating costs. In any business model, a 75% labor cost is pretty much certain death over time. The players have to realize that.
On the other hand, however, the owners share equal blame. They were the ones that decided to give outrageous contracts to players like Martin Lapointe. So they are obviously far from being innocent victims. But now they want to try to control costs of players' salaries? Sounds like a rancher closing the gate after the horses have run away.
I agree that there needs to be some form of cost control. But why not do a luxury tax like Major League Baseball? In that model, if a team goes over the "cap", like, let's say...hmmm...who would be a good team...OK, OK, the Rangers. If the Rangers go over the cap amount, then the amount they go over goes into a general fund to be distributed amongst the other teams that are below the cap.
But the bottom line is that there are now only seven days to get a deal done. So quit with the f---ing posturing, sit down and work this thing out!!

hotgoalie11565 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 11:52 PM
  #8
PredsFan77*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Undisclosed
Country: Maldives
Posts: 6,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to PredsFan77* Send a message via AIM to PredsFan77*
I vote for the refs!

PredsFan77* is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 12:18 AM
  #9
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotgoalie11565
.... the players want to keep getting the same amount of money as they have been for the past few years.
please dont lie, it does nothing to strengthen your point.

the players dont care if they get more or less than previous years, they simply dont want to be paid in a salary cap enviroment.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-09-2004, 12:30 AM
  #10
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
please dont lie, it does nothing to strengthen your point.

the players dont care if they get more or less than previous years, they simply dont want to be paid in a salary cap enviroment.

dr
You're right dr, because the players offered a paycut.

What I can't understand is if they players don't mind making less, why they can't make less under a cap? Seems like this is only a temporary offer from the NHLPA, cause they know the salaries would start going up again soon.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 09:29 AM
  #11
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
You're right dr, because the players offered a paycut.

What I can't understand is if they players don't mind making less, why they can't make less under a cap? Seems like this is only a temporary offer from the NHLPA, cause they know the salaries would start going up again soon.
because once a CAP is in place, it will never be replaced in their opinion. also, because they dont want to be tied to how the owners accounting and i dont blame them.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-09-2004, 09:30 AM
  #12
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
they know the salaries would start going up again soon.
this is what i dont get. if the salaries will just go up, doesnt that mean thats where they should be ?

i mean, the owners sure seem convinced that player salaries must come down, so why would they just allow them to increase again unless they could afford it ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-09-2004, 09:35 AM
  #13
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,882
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I'll vote with the players, who actually seem like they care about starting the season on time and are bringing somthing to the table.


I could care less who "wins" the upcoming CBA. I just want the season to start on time .

Totally agree.



Also, no one held a gun to these owners' heads and told them to give $9 million dollars to Bill Guerin and $11 million to Keith Tkachuk...

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 09:46 AM
  #14
Ironchef Chris Wok*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Sox Nation
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Ironchef Chris Wok*
I vote for the side that will lower ticket prices.

Yeah right

Ironchef Chris Wok* is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 09:50 AM
  #15
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Totally agree.



Also, no one held a gun to these owners' heads and told them to give $9 million dollars to Bill Guerin and $11 million to Keith Tkachuk...
said players would just sit out and the fans would tear up their season tickets if they didn't resign said players...its a no win situation for the fans/owners when a player holds the owner/gm ransom...**** 'em all

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 11:36 AM
  #16
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Totally agree.



Also, no one held a gun to these owners' heads and told them to give $9 million dollars to Bill Guerin and $11 million to Keith Tkachuk...
gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 11:45 AM
  #17
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.
Excelent points made... The one thing that stands out when agents and players compare their stats to the guy next to them when wanting a raise in salary, is that once they make their case and get handed more money... then go out and have a miserable season(no motivation once big contract signed) you don't see the owners going to the agents and have them wanting to pay this guy less, because some rookie or sophomore got the same #of goals and assists as his overpaid client! Does it only work one way for the PA??? If the player gets better he gets richer, if he starts to stink, well he still gets richer I think the system is flawed and both parties are to blame. the boys should put their EGOS aside and do what is right for the GAME and it's FANS!!!!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 01:59 PM
  #18
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,882
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.
Once again, no one held a gun to the owners' head and told them to give these guys that money

Quote:
3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.


Quote:
The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.
Sure the system is flawed. Sure there should be cost certanty. I agree with those, but to say the only way they will agree to anything is if there is a $31 million dollar payroll is absurd. $45-50 would be a bit more reasonable.

This isn't because of the salaries. They have one of the lowest payrolls in the league. No one comes to see them play, and no one pays for concessions, parking, apparel, etc. You think they can't afford to field a competitive team because Dick Tarnstrom is making too much money? Maybe its because they don't have any source of revenue, thus they have a ****** product no one wants to see. However, Minnesota, Nashville and Calgary didn't do too bad a season or two ago with a low payroll.

And just because there is a low salary cap doesn't mean some (self-centered) players won't ask for $7 million dollars, even though their team would be at whatever the cap is (which if the owners were smart, they would realize that a luxury tax might be the better way to go anyways)

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:13 PM
  #19
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.
This post is BANG ON! Cheers GB! I realize that the owners have created the problem by giving out to much money, but the real problem is the system which establishes the market place. Teams like Boston, and Tampa Bay are looked at as cheap, because they walked away from players who were awarded hefty pay raises by the flawed system. I think it is great to see them walk away, and if more teams would do that it never would have gotten to this stand off now. But, there will always be a deep pocket owner who is willing to take that over valued player, and thus the solution to the problem is scrapped at the infancy stage.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:29 PM
  #20
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Once again, no one held a gun to the owners' head and told them to give these guys that money







Sure the system is flawed. Sure there should be cost certanty. I agree with those, but to say the only way they will agree to anything is if there is a $31 million dollar payroll is absurd. $45-50 would be a bit more reasonable.

This isn't because of the salaries. They have one of the lowest payrolls in the league. No one comes to see them play, and no one pays for concessions, parking, apparel, etc. You think they can't afford to field a competitive team because Dick Tarnstrom is making too much money? Maybe its because they don't have any source of revenue, thus they have a ****** product no one wants to see. However, Minnesota, Nashville and Calgary didn't do too bad a season or two ago with a low payroll.

And just because there is a low salary cap doesn't mean some (self-centered) players won't ask for $7 million dollars, even though their team would be at whatever the cap is (which if the owners were smart, they would realize that a luxury tax might be the better way to go anyways)
Unfortunately for the fans, regardless of what and if there is a cap or tax, the ticket prices will not decrease and so if you are a Leafs fan, and your teams owners are making a bundle the way the league is run now, then you cut down the payroll by 10-15 million in the form of a tax then the fans still get screwed, because the tickets will still start at $50 for the cheapies, going up to the $200 plus level. I just can't get my head around it.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:49 PM
  #21
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.
best post i've seen in awhile on this subject, good job

garry1221 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:04 PM
  #22
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
your post
gkj, I can agree with most every post you have ever put on these boards, but to continue supporting the players just totally disregards my post.

1. I don't necessarily agree with the cap number. Easy math...$1.2 billion is approximately 60% of revenue. That would deduce $40 million as an easy figure with inflationary increase or as revenue increases.

2. You are overlooking the obvious. If I am the Rangers, I am not doing anything wrong when you look at my franchise. I am still profitable. My building is still full. You can't take individual teams and have them build their franchises based on how another team is going to feel. That totally circumnavigates human nature. People want to be given a set of parameters and rules to compete by, where everyone has a similar structure.

The gun to the head is asking teams with lower revenue streams to either lose money or not be competitive. The gun to the head is an arbitration system that only benefits one side. The gun to the head is the lack of the penalty to hold outs. The gun to the head is that a $2 BILLION dollar organization had losses of $300 million dolllars.

I tell you, if I was a business owner with those losses on that revenue stream, heads would be rolling, and if it was a union that caused those losses, I WOULD BREAK IT. I totally agree with unions. I have no problem in fair business practice. But not at the expense of losing my business.

If you can tell me that if the NHL decided to take the entire pool of money $1.2 Billion dollars and HANDED it to the players that they would be hard done by.

Their ridiculous excuse that they don't want cost certainty....Go To H. E. Double hockeys sticks. What is wrong with "If we make money, you make money, the more revenue you create, the more you get."

The only thing capping the players salaries is their ability to help the NHL promote the game and increase revenue streams. No, ****** it, they are saying to the owners of $100 million dollar business that they don't give a four wing whether or not they have to take millions of dollars out of their other businesses or net worth so they can be spoon fed large "Guaranteed" contracts.

Fine. No cap. No guaranteed contracts. Status quo. Jagr, sorry, you are cut.


Last edited by Slats432: 09-09-2004 at 03:07 PM.
Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:28 PM
  #23
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.
No you do not sign him for that amount. You sign him for the market rate. You pay him what his bargaining power enables him to get.

Quote:
2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.
Once again a team does not pay a player based upon a percentage of their budget.

Quote:
3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.
Name one real life example of anything that even remotely resembles this fantasyland notion.

Quote:
The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.
The current system is not flawed. Right now young players are cheap and old players tend to be expensive. Just because Pittsburgh has to have a young team right does not mean it cannot be a good team.

Quote:
And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.
If the owners can't run their businesses profitably maybe they should get out and let someone who can try and run it.

Why should the players agree to a system where the owners are guaranteed a profit? Last time I checked North America had a capitalist economy. If the owners want a socialist system maybe they should move their teams to Sweden.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 04:05 PM
  #24
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
The current system is not flawed.
I would get into a big debate with you, but if you can't agree with the NHLPA on this point, then we don't have anything to discuss.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 05:20 PM
  #25
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team.
What if Pittsburgh set the market first? Every year there is a new crop of comparables, not always at the same rate as last year. Just because one player took the comparable higher one year, doesnt mean it will affect the next years crop.

And which player has NYR ever signed that has been used as a comparable anyway? When you think in the abstract it sounds like this could happen, but in reality it doesnt.

And in Pittsburghs case as you have outlined, are you suggesting a wise team building decision for Pittsburgh, Wash, or NYR in the next few years is to go out on the free agent market and purchase $4mil 40 goal scorer? I would call that a very bad decision. Very unwise. Only being made out of fear the owner wont be able to make money and will sell the team. That like Mario now, they cant make money while rebuilding.

I think there is a definite lack of respect for how hard it is to build a great team. And a lack of clear thinking on how money isnt an advantage in that process. Fans seem to think if there is an easy way for everyone to buy a team, all the teams will be great and make money.

thinkwild 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 02:16 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.