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.

Sometimes I have the feeling that people are just innocent....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2004, 01:35 PM
  #1
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Sometimes I have the feeling that people are just innocent....

Innocent meaning they don't think before they talk, before they do something.

Argument A : ''I won't cry for players making millions''

Players salary are public notoriety & people put all the negotiations problem on how much a player should make bla bla bla.

Owners most of them if you take a close look , you can find their fortune somewhere on a business review magazine. People just see the owner making deficit but don't think on how they worth.

So they say something stupid like ''I won't cry for players making millions'' but why you don't have any sympathy for a player making 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 millions a year but you do have sympathy for an owner having a fortune between 250,000,000$ to billions for some ???

Argument B : ''Owner have a right to make profit because they are taking all the risk''

OF course they have a right to make profit but find me a book where it says, invest X amount of money & you will make X guaranteed profit ? You have thousands & thousands of fake successfull business but in reality, if you invest 1$ or 100,000,000$ you need to work hard to make profit.

If you were about to go on a business where you invest 1000$ & you will be guaranteed to have 1000$ in return , which fool wouldn't do it ???

So why does people are foolish enough to side with the owners to have a guaranteed profit or a guaranteed no-deficit ???? It just not make sense.

Some owners bought the NHL teams because they were rich & it's a toy for them as simple as that. Why should we sympathize about that owner who hired incompetent staff or give them blank checks with their signatures on it ? Now because they say it's enough , we should sympathize ?

Some owners bought an NHL franchise seriously in order to get a competitive teams & making some money & with the ACTUAL CBA they did it ? WHY ? because they hired competent staff, they have a strategic plan on how to do things & they , as a team, work together to make the best possible solution. Are they handicapped by another owner who paid another guy 4M$, 6M$ , 8M$ ,10M$/year ? of course not. They follow their own plan. If a players is not worth the money he's asking for, he will be trade or unsigned (UFA) or let the player in a LOCKOUT. They made responsible decisions regarding their own ''BUDGET'' that you can call yourself ''COST CERTAINTY'' = budget vs players salary.

If you hired a Bobby Holik 9,000,000$ & you are making 9,000,000$ loss this season, is it the CBA's fault ??

If you personnally having a 50,000$ salary & your lifestyle is 60,000$ /year make you be in debt for 10,000$/year is it the fault of the today cost of thing ? Inflation ? government ?

NHL franchise or simple person who made bad decision in life DESERVE to have debt & deficit because that's the way it is. You need to be responsible in life. Don't blame the market if you can't afford a house because in the last 2 years a house that worth 100,000$ is now worth 150,000$. Don't buy the house or buy it when you will have the budget to go for it. Same thing apply for an NHL franchise, don't blame Detroit for paying Lidstrom 10,000,000$ or Holik 9,000,000$ by the Rangers, you can have a succesfull team without paying those players if you are smart enough & you have a staff competent enough to find players that would fit your budget & worth every penny you invest in a player. If it doesn't work , it happens , live with the decision & try to patch things over until you get rid of that error.

No one in life get blank after making a mistake why should an NHL franchise should be like that ?

Argument C : ''The big Markets have a huge advantage because they can spend more''

Why not ??? Does every company in every economic sector are in the same level of competitivity ? Does Wendy's have the same market power over McDonald's ? Can Wendy succeed even if McDonalds is such powerful ? Can Apple succeed even if IBM is a powerful machine ? Does Kodak, Canon, Olympus, Minolta & others are in the same level filed when it comes to digital camera ???

NHL teams is everything like the reality. You have a big markets & small markets & you defend yourself the way you can & the best teams are not the richest team. It's the teams with the best all-around STAFF that are having the best TEAMS. Maybe Carolina didn't make the playoffs after a stanley cup apperance but can it be because the other team became more competitive against them & the staff made bad decisions ?? Same apply to New Jersey after they won the cup. Same for Anaheim who thought they would be better by letting Kariya-Oates go for Fedorov-Prospal for the same cost !!!! This is not a CBA problem , this is a MANAGEMENT PROBLEM !!!

Argument D : ''The NFL is so successful that's why we should have a cap''

The NFL is so successful because
1- The TV Right revenues sharing game each team a lot of money
2- Every team for some certain product share their revenus
3- The CAP is not a unanimous decision that it's a positive thing said by a lot a NFL GM's. It embrace a lot of mediocrity instead of embracing the quality of building a team.

Arizona, Cincinnati before last year, Dallas before Parcells, St-Louis for a lot of time, San Diego, struggle to be competitive for a lot of years ??? WHY ??? Because of incompetency , because the staff somewhere made BAD DECISIONS!!! the cap wasn't a problem !! The cap wasn't an issue, they simply made bad decisions !!!


Argument E : ''The CBA is the problem why teams are having deficits year after year''

Why is that ??? Because the arbritation game a player 7M$ , they will automatically make a deficit ??? You accept the arbitration. NHLPA usually won arbitration, NHL usually won the 10% qualification except for those players who got a good year & want more but they still have the power to trade him, let him do his lockout & not play for any NHL teams or PAY HIM what he wants if he fit your budget.

If your boss gives you 100,000$ this year & the company loss 100,000$ this year, is this your fault ? or the staff who gave too much salary increase made bad decisions ??

Some teams even if they are a small market teams make deficits not because they are automatically a small market but because you are making BAD DECISIONS. If the Sabres organizations does not make any hope for their fans that they will be competitive this year & they don't make move to make the fans believe they could do something good this year & no one shows in the arena, is it the CBA fault ? is it the FANS fault ? or is it the management fault to not do everything in their hands to make things happens ?

If San Jose did make it by turning the franchise around & winning the division the next year & Buffalo did not succeed , is it the CBA's fault ? is it the players fault ? or is it the MANAGEMENT that aren't good enough to make audacious decision that would transform this team & make the fans believe they should buy some tickets to watch the game ? Same thing apply Calgary vs Edmonton ?

The blame over Philly who did not won any cup since 30+ years, Toronto 37 years, St-Louis, Rangers no playoff in 7 years, is ridiculous.

Detroit & Colorado win most of all because of good drafting, good decisions regarding who to acquire to complete the core that was already develop by the team. Now Detroit is still buying UFA's but why they didn't succeed the last 2 years ? Colorado is now thin in the prospect department , should we feel sorry for them ? If we don't feel sorry because they are now thin in the prospect department why some are so arrogant that they acquired UFA's , signed their players, having a big payroll & winning some cups ? Dallas won a cup but they still try by acquiring some UFA's but it doesn't work. Should we feel sorry for them ? Why some are pointing at them when they are winning but it's ok when they don't succeed ?

Conclusion
People are trying in the name of their ''put your favorite team'' franchise in hope that it's the CBA's fault, that's it's the players salaries fault instead of looking of what can go wrong in their STAFF DEPARTMENT.

I'm from Montreal, we suffer a few years because we had so much POOR MANAGEMENT, it start with Rejean Houle who was VERY POOR in the HOCKEY DECISION & we had ANDRE SAVARD who was SO VERY POOR in the FINANCIAL DECISION that we think it's the CBA's fault if a Craig Rivet worth 2,750,000$ this season, Patrice Brisebois 4,000,000$ this season, Karl Dykhuis 1,600,000$ for reserve defenseman, we had to buy out Randy McKAy 2,250,000$ & it goes on.

This Montreal lack of succss was not the CBA's fault, some will easily say this because this franchise got 45M$ payroll but if the management was making good decisions we could have had the same success for maybe 35-37M$ so the 7-9M$ loss claim in the last few years would be suddenly a even budget.

Why would Montreal should get away of bad decisions? Same apply to any team that hired bad hockey management people & /or bad financial management people. If your GM's is not good financially don't let him do his job (owner) & hired someone who is good financially to make good decisions. If your staff does draft bad for 3-4-5 years in a row, is it the CBA's fault if they stinks for 5 years & 5 years later they still have nothing to show for ???

That why sometimes I have the feeling that people are so innocent & dream in a perfect world for hockey when in real life the rules is so different & it should be the same for NHL hockey.

If we don't have hockey this year, don't blame the players, blame the owners & find the reason why your hockey team lose money or why your team does not succeed last year or the last couple year.

Russian Fan

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 02:02 PM
  #2
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
You're over-simplfying the problems again. And putting a one-sided slant on it as well.

The gauntlet runs both ways; to ignore that both parties have a hand in these problems is ignoring some basic and fundamental business practices. I've tried to point these things out before but apparently I've just been screaming into the wind. The need to elaborate extensively won't help, so I'll pass.

Only elaboration I'll make here is on Argument C, and I'll shorten it up. There are many different "types" of markets. What you argue is more of a free and competitive market. The NHL doesn't fall in that category (not making that up for arguments sake either, it is true). Consequently, the market forces here are in many ways quite different from a "free market". It invalidates many of the points presented from those who view it thusly.

But I am confident that you and some others will disregard that fact, happened too many times before to change now. Kinda like knowing the sun will rise every day; you just know some things are never gonna change.

cws is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 02:07 PM
  #3
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
You're over-simplfying the problems again. And putting a one-sided slant on it as well.

The gauntlet runs both ways; to ignore that both parties have a hand in these problems is ignoring some basic and fundamental business practices. I've tried to point these things out before but apparently I've just been screaming into the wind. The need to elaborate extensively won't help, so I'll pass.

Only elaboration I'll make here is on Argument C, and I'll shorten it up. There are many different "types" of markets. What you argue is more of a free and competitive market. The NHL doesn't fall in that category (not making that up for arguments sake either, it is true). Consequently, the market forces here are in many ways quite different from a "free market". It invalidates many of the points presented from those who view it thusly.

But I am confident that you and some others will disregard that fact, happened too many times before to change now. Kinda like knowing the sun will rise every day; you just know some things are never gonna change.

Even if the market for the NHL is different because they ''need'' each other. How making bad decisions from your MANAGEMENT staff is the players fault ???

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 03:33 PM
  #4
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
OF course they have a right to make profit but find me a book where it says, invest X amount of money & you will make X guaranteed profit ? You have thousands & thousands of fake successfull business but in reality, if you invest 1$ or 100,000,000$ you need to work hard to make profit.

If you were about to go on a business where you invest 1000$ & you will be guaranteed to have 1000$ in return , which fool wouldn't do it ???

So why does people are foolish enough to side with the owners to have a guaranteed profit or a guaranteed no-deficit ???? It just not make sense.
It doesn't make sense because it doesn't garantee profits anymore than any other type of business.

So what you're suggesting the owners are trying to achieve has very little to do with what the owners are asking for. As a business entity, this garantees them ZERO dollar. Not a cent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Some owners bought the NHL teams because they were rich & it's a toy for them as simple as that. Why should we sympathize about that owner who hired incompetent staff or give them blank checks with their signatures on it ? Now because they say it's enough , we should sympathize ?
You're free to sympathize with them or not. I don't sympathize much, although I recognize the vital role business entities play in our society. I'm thinking about myself as a hockey fan and as someone living in a NHL city.

I'm not interested in tax breaks for corporations and the like. I don't want the little guys to pay for the big guys, so they can pay a couple of crybabies to play a game.

Also, I've been around long enough to understand that the game was a lot better when the owners had the upper hand.

As a product, I relate to hockey personnel. I don't relate to owners. I can name almost every single player who has played a game last year, the 30 NHL coaches, many of the assistants. But I don't even know the name of more than 15 owners. It's not what hockey is about for me.

What's important for me is that the players sign contracts, shut their trap and play. That's about the extent of what I want. And that's what I know I will get when the owners get the upper hand. So I side with the owners, because I'm a hockey fan.

Players will tell you they don't care about the inflation they have created because it's a business decision and they have to think about their families. That's a rather obscene way to look at it but I can buy that. Now they have to accept that some fans don't give a flying F about all this and must think of their own family.

It's nothing personnal. All I want is for players to play the game of hockey. I don't want open the paper and hear about player X sitting, player Y whining because he doesn't make enough and player Z jumping ship to the highest bidder.

I want to hear about hockey. Instead, this has been turned into a Monopoly game at the level where I am a spectator of financial decisions. It's not entertaining to me nor to any true hockey fans.

Simply put, hoceky was a lot more entertaining when the players were getting screwed. I'd prefer a fair system for both parties but if we can't get that, I have no problems with the players getting screwed. Even if they were screwed really bad (which is never going to happen ever again).

The question is, why does a fan like you feel the need to defend players who do not give a flying F about you and who have turned the game into something LESS enjoyable?

You enjoy Wall Street hockey?

You think it's a coincidence if the average fan has trouble nowadays bringing his family for an evening of NHL hockey? It's a direct consequence of the disgusting raises those punks have got to play this game.

You bet your ass players get no sympathy from me.

Hockey was a lot more fun when it wasn't about budgeting, cutting costs and all that crap. I don't give a damn if the owners were rich. I don't give a damn if they were exploiting players. I just know it was better for me, as a fan. It was all about hockey in the papers. Decisions were made most of the time for hockey-related reasons.

Why would anyone support the players exactly? Alll they've done is make this game worse.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 03:37 PM
  #5
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 Russian Fan
Even if the market for the NHL is different because they ''need'' each other. How making bad decisions from your MANAGEMENT staff is the players fault ???
it's a two way street, if you blame management for signing a player to x number of dollars, yet you see the player who everyone knows isn't worth that much demanding y number of dollars more than management is offering, however there's nobody on the market better than said player then you either compromise and give him something in between or you let him walk and ice a lesser team because of it, it's a two way street and the current cba has given FAR too much to the players, between entry level contracts, manditory 10 % increases and a few out of control owners you've got yourself the mess that we're in today, while i don't completely support bettman and his hard cap, i won't sit back and say it's all the woners fault either, the owners need the players to give some, the players need the owners to give some, the owners are asking a little more from the players for the simple fact that the players have been the ones mostly in control since the cba was signed, anyone who argues against that better have an excellent, new argument as to why the players haven't been in control

garry1221 is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 04:13 PM
  #6
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
It doesn't make sense because it doesn't garantee profits anymore than any other type of business.

So what you're suggesting the owners are trying to achieve has very little to do with what the owners are asking for. As a business entity, this garantees them ZERO dollar. Not a cent.
What I'm trying to say is that what the owners are trying to achieve is what no other business in the world can achieve : GUARANTEED PROFIT no matter how competent you are, no matter how well or how bad you run it.

I almost open a Dairy Queen like company this summer, is there someone here will tell me that no matter how I will run the business, I should make profit because I invest in it ? It's bulls*it, everyone would have their own business if it would be like that ?

So what makes a difference between a good business & a bad business ? Very simple answer that I can go very far but it's how good you hired your staff. You can have the product in the world , if your staff to manage the best product in the world can't handle it, you won't stay long in the business.

It's the ability to hired your staff & make them work as a team in order to maximize the goal you want to achieve ?

Back to the NHL what is the goal of an NHL Team ? Ask 30 gm's & 30 owners you will have 30 different answers .

A) I want to win the cup at ALL COST
what's wrong with that ? should we blame the players & the actual CBA for a team that spend 20-30 millions over his budget to achieve a goal that ONLY 1 team can do per year ?

B) I want to be competitive with the budget I have ?
This is what some owner did, they hired a GM like Doug Risebrought who just not know about evaluating players but how to manage the financial side & the result is there every year !!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
You're free to sympathize with them or not. I don't sympathize much, although I recognize the vital role business entities play in our society. I'm thinking about myself as a hockey fan and as someone living in a NHL city.

I'm not interested in tax breaks for corporations and the like. I don't want the little guys to pay for the big guys, so they can pay a couple of crybabies to play a game.

Also, I've been around long enough to understand that the game was a lot better when the owners had the upper hand.
How was it better when they got the better hand ? because they played hockey ? So when your father work his a*s off & his boss make him work every penny in order to make a lot of money in the back of your father, it was better then ?

This is very selfish that you apply 1 rule to the NHL but you don't apply it to the rest of the world.

By the way, I , for one, think the hockey is better today than it was 10 years ago. Hockey was better 10 years ago than it was 20 years ago. The hockey in 10 years will be better than it is today. The quality of the athletes is so superior , so fast, so scrutinize that winning is not only about 1 player, it's about the intangibles & I love it.

I don't care about money , I don't care about how much a player make but to say it's ok when the owners of any company not only the NHL was doing a dictatorship over their employees & everyone had to shut up instead of today where the world is trying to make HUMAN RESOURCES an important part on how a business can be succesfull.

Players today have some rights & they need it after 75 years of unilateral selfishness of the owners. For you as a fan it's about HAVING GAME OCTOBER 13th, for the players it's about continuing the care of their group. Getting some respect.

I'm gonna off-base a bit here but you live in the Quebec province, you see a government that didn't care about the way of life in here by taking away what the syndicate are all about to make a unilateral movement to get to their goal. Is that okay too Vlad ? Should the people just shut up because it would be better this way ? Just go to work , let the government decide for you, everything that you the Quebec employers gain over the owners of the companies in the last 30 years going in ashes ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
As a product, I relate to hockey personnel. I don't relate to owners. I can name almost every single player who has played a game last year, the 30 NHL coaches, many of the assistants. But I don't even know the name of more than 15 owners. It's not what hockey is about for me.

What's important for me is that the players sign contracts, shut their trap and play. That's about the extent of what I want. And that's what I know I will get when the owners get the upper hand. So I side with the owners, because I'm a hockey fan.
So the players trying to retain their right they acquire is WRONG because you as a fan wants hockey & you blame them for not having your hobby next season ?

But owners that are cutting people off in their business outside of hockey to make profits & doing the same is ok ? Also they do this by manipulating people opinion by saying they do that because they care about the fans ? it's just disgusting to me the way they do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Players will tell you they don't care about the inflation they have created because it's a business decision and they have to think about their families. That's a rather obscene way to look at it but I can buy that. Now they have to accept that some fans don't give a flying F about all this and must think of their own family.

It's nothing personnal. All I want is for players to play the game of hockey. I don't want open the paper and hear about player X sitting, player Y whining because he doesn't make enough and player Z jumping ship to the highest bidder.
Again i'm sure if the NHL would put in the CBA that they would fix the ticket price for the fan if the NHLPA take compromise, they would atleast consider but

A) the owners does not even want to share their revenues between each other. How can you expect the players to give everything if the other side is not willing to help each other ?

B) How can you trust an owner when they don't want to open their book completely in order for the players to know how deep are the deficits ?

I understand hearing about X player whining about not getting the $ they worth is not hockey but how is it okay for an owner to whine about players salaries when they did it themselves ????

Let's say there is a cap, how tickets will drop in Montreal ? What make you so sure that a salary will benefit the FAN & not the owner ? Montreal is a sell out crowd , why would they lower the ticket price even with a cap ? Same thing for Toronto, Edmonton, Ottawa & most NHL team ?

The correlation between every poster here who says that a salary cap will benefit the fans by lowering ticket price is FLAWED. I don't believe it at all. They lower ticket price in some city because they are to incompetent to put a good team on the ICE so the demand for the tickets is not equal to the offer at the price it's offer. Simple concept ? Yes it but it's always starting there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I want to hear about hockey. Instead, this has been turned into a Monopoly game at the level where I am a spectator of financial decisions. It's not entertaining to me nor to any true hockey fans.

Simply put, hoceky was a lot more entertaining when the players were getting screwed. I'd prefer a fair system for both parties but if we can't get that, I have no problems with the players getting screwed. Even if they were screwed really bad (which is never going to happen ever again).

The question is, why does a fan like you feel the need to defend players who do not give a flying F about you and who have turned the game into something LESS enjoyable?

You enjoy Wall Street hockey?
I'm not into Wall Street hockey but I don't think the players don't care about the fans. I think the OWNER don't give a ****** about us. They want profits & if it means no hockey for 5 years, they are able to do it. If it means getting a new league & they are a majority of owners to think so then they will do it regardless of the history of the league & the FAN attachment to it.

Again you seem very selfish, all you care is having hockey no matter who is getting screw as long as you have YOUR fun. That's why we call this era the Selfish -individualist ERA. I'm not attacking you personnaly I don't know you outside of here but by what you said , if the players are getting screw but you have hockey it's ok. Well owner screwed themselves for 10 years & you had hockey, was it ok ? Why wouldn't be ok again ?.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
You think it's a coincidence if the average fan has trouble nowadays bringing his family for an evening of NHL hockey? It's a direct consequence of the disgusting raises those punks have got to play this game.

You bet your ass players get no sympathy from me.

Hockey was a lot more fun when it wasn't about budgeting, cutting costs and all that crap. I don't give a damn if the owners were rich. I don't give a damn if they were exploiting players. I just know it was better for me, as a fan. It was all about hockey in the papers. Decisions were made most of the time for hockey-related reasons.

Why would anyone support the players exactly? Alll they've done is make this game worse.
Like I said , hockey is still fun for me, I'm all about Pavel Datsyuk, Ilya Kovalchuk, Nikolai Zherdev & so on. I don't care about budget when I watch a game, I don't say ''Datsyuk is good for 1,5M'' it's just ''DATSYUK is AWESOME''

Again what the players have done to make this game worst ? Are you sure like so many posters here you translate the word players for owners.

like ''The players are unwilling to compromise when the owner want a cap or nothing & they will be the one LOCKING OUT hockey this season''

Usually you're a very good poster Vlad but this one seems to be ''I want to be a good guy on HF because most poster think the OWNER are good''.

Some FACTS here :

Owner on every business fired people to get to their goal that is making profit
Owner on every business make decisions without caring for anyone because all they want is to make profits & making their shareholders MONEY !!

Syndicates are the one who try to improve the way of life of the people.
Syndicates are the one who try to get a fair environment for the people.

This is not opinions it's FACTS

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 04:17 PM
  #7
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
it's a two way street, if you blame management for signing a player to x number of dollars, yet you see the player who everyone knows isn't worth that much demanding y number of dollars more than management is offering, however there's nobody on the market better than said player then you either compromise and give him something in between or you let him walk and ice a lesser team because of it, it's a two way street and the current cba has given FAR too much to the players, between entry level contracts, manditory 10 % increases and a few out of control owners you've got yourself the mess that we're in today, while i don't completely support bettman and his hard cap, i won't sit back and say it's all the woners fault either, the owners need the players to give some, the players need the owners to give some, the owners are asking a little more from the players for the simple fact that the players have been the ones mostly in control since the cba was signed, anyone who argues against that better have an excellent, new argument as to why the players haven't been in control
Again read what you said, how it can be a players fault to exercise is right or go elsewhere where he think he'll get what he want.

You make 30,000$ & in 2-weeks by the CBA your syndicate has made with the owner, you have to get a raise of 32,000$. Maybe some other businesses around the country does not have syndicate & the average salary is 26,000$ for this same job with the same experience. Will you give 6000$ or it's your right to do so WHICH the OWNER agree to sign the CBA !!!

Don't blame a player to have a right to get what he want. If he needs to go in a lockout , the team have a right to trade him or keep him. Both are exercising their right. Nothing wrong about it both side.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 04:30 PM
  #8
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
I'm not into Wall Street hockey but I don't think the players don't care about the fans. I think the OWNER don't give a ****** about us. They want profits & if it means no hockey for 5 years, they are able to do it. If it means getting a new league & they are a majority of owners to think so then they will do it regardless of the history of the league & the FAN attachment to it.
Can't you see that everything you just said applies to the players as well? Not only do they get massive amounts of money, they want more. And if it means no hockey for 5 years, they're willing to sit out - and do it at the expense of the fans that pay their salary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
the owners does not even want to share their revenues between each other. How can you expect the players to give everything if the other side is not willing to help each other ?
Okay, if that sounds good to you, why wouldn't this be fair: Give the players a percentage of all NHL revenue, and let them split it up among themselves. Since they're so interested in revenue-sharing, I'm sure they'd go for that, right?

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 05:11 PM
  #9
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
... money, they want more.
lying does not improve your point. the players dont care if they make more or less, the just refuse to do it in a salary cap system.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 05:16 PM
  #10
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
lying does not improve your point. the players dont care if they make more or less, the just refuse to do it in a salary cap system.
Umm... yeah. And why do they refuse a salary cap? So there's no restriction on their salaries, so they can make more. It's not that hard to figure out.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 05:21 PM
  #11
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Okay, if that sounds good to you, why wouldn't this be fair: Give the players a percentage of all NHL revenue, and let them split it up among themselves. Since they're so interested in revenue-sharing, I'm sure they'd go for that, right?
Fair ? Players are employees working in a CBA they are not the businessman. They don't want to be part of the business even if they acknowledge that some are in trouble. What they don't acknowledge & that you seem to put that aside is that most franchises in trouble are not because of the CBA like Bill Daly & Bettman would like you to believe.

I never said they are interested in revenue-sharing. Read again : Why the players should help the owners if the owners themselves don't want to share the PIE between each other ?

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 05:40 PM
  #12
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
What I'm trying to say is that what the owners are trying to achieve is what no other business in the world can achieve : GUARANTEED PROFIT no matter how competent you are, no matter how well or how bad you run it.
?

The owners are looking for cost certainty... Something that happens in most (if not every) franchise-type business...

Nobody can guarantee profits, as nobody can guarantee demand...

If demand cannot be guaranteed, how can profits be guaranteed even if the business costs are certain / formally tied to revenue?

IMO, it is shortsighted to ignore demand - at least an equally important variable to determining profit as are costs...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 06:35 PM
  #13
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 DementedReality
lying does not improve your point. the players dont care if they make more or less, the just refuse to do it in a salary cap system.

dr
if the players didn't care about the money, they wouldn't care if there was a salary cap. plain and simple. they'll try to sway people such as yourself with their talk of how they don't care what they get paid, but when it comes down to it, if they didn't care, then they wouldn't be trying to get as much as they can now, you've tried this argument before and it failed then as it's failing now

garry1221 is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 06:45 PM
  #14
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 Russian Fan
Fair ? Players are employees working in a CBA they are not the businessman. They don't want to be part of the business even if they acknowledge that some are in trouble. What they don't acknowledge & that you seem to put that aside is that most franchises in trouble are not because of the CBA like Bill Daly & Bettman would like you to believe.

I never said they are interested in revenue-sharing. Read again : Why the players should help the owners if the owners themselves don't want to share the PIE between each other ?
they don't want to be part of the business??... then they should step aside and let those who play for the love of the game step in and take over, simple as that, sure the product may not be the same for a few years, but if they don't want to be part of the business then they should take themselves out of the business. they dont' acknowledge that they're in trouble cause that would mean admitting that they are part of that trouble, then they'd have to do something (accept major salary cuts or a salary cap) about it.

why should players help the owners if the owners don't want to share their revenue? this is like asking mcdonalds franchise A why it won't give mcdonalds franchise B money if B franchise has less sales in a week than franchise A. why won't they do it?... cause it's two separate entities under the same name (ie detroit red wings and buffalo sabres both entities of the NHL)... differences, while a cheeseburger at both franchise A and B cost the same price, the same can't be said for the wings and sabres, tickets cost different prices, there's differnt salaries in the nhl whereas mickey d's all workers start at one rate and when the time comes get raises determined by their work ethic and what they've done thus far in the company. nhl players don't give a damn, they tell the owners pay us this or we won't play or we'll go to your competitor and they'll give us what we want.

things need to be changed and a big portion of the change HAS to be done by the players, for it's the players that have had their run of things since the cba was last signed, it's the players who've brought on the salary mess we have today

garry1221 is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 09:07 PM
  #15
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
they don't want to be part of the business??... then they should step aside and let those who play for the love of the game step in and take over, simple as that,
lol ... are you really that naive ? for the love of the game ? give me a break !

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 09:11 PM
  #16
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
the players who've brought on the salary mess we have today
a CBA the owners happily extended TWICE. well, of course that was because they were on the verge of adding a few hundred million in expansion fee's.

speaking of expansion. you think these businessmen actually invested all those millions on a "promise" from Bettman that in 2004 it will all be fixed ? of course not ! they did their homework and decided for one reason or another to become part of the NHL.

i find it laughable that anyone holds the players responsible for the problems we have today AND for the fact the NHL is on hold.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 10:25 PM
  #17
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
a CBA the owners happily extended TWICE. well, of course that was because they were on the verge of adding a few hundred million in expansion fee's.
I don't think they were anything remotely close to "happy". But yeah, you're right.

It's been a great display of stupidity.

However, everytime the owners attempt to correct the misfire, the NHLPA (and fans like you) say things are fine as they are.

So lemme take a wild guess here. You're going to continue support the status quo and this insane free market thing. Then if the owners bend over (as usual) you're going to be happy. Then things are going to keep on being screwed up. Then when the owners complain, you and all the supporters of this mess are going to point at the fact they all agreed to sign that CBA.

Rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

I still agree with you that the owners must share the responsibility for this mess. I just think that to say they happily signed is totally inaccurate. They certainly tried in the past. They just didn't have the stones, the foresight and the strategy to pull it off.

It is also true that it was totally moronic the way they expanded. They used those expansions (much too fast) as a milking cow. Talk about a mess...

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 10:43 PM
  #18
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Again you seem very selfish, all you care is having hockey no matter who is getting screw as long as you have YOUR fun. That's why we call this era the Selfish -individualist ERA. I'm not attacking you personnaly I don't know you outside of here but by what you said , if the players are getting screw but you have hockey it's ok.
I had written a super-long response to your super-long post earlier today but I guess my computer didn't like me and decided to screw everything up.

I'm not going to type all of this again but I'd like to address the fact you called me selfish about 3-4 times in a single post and explain myself.

See, I think it's very fun if you want to defend players who don't give a **** about you and totally ****ing up the system but you should keep in mind a CBA is all about that. Hockey has become a business, and those players are businessmen.

They're going in there with the intention of taking no prisoners and they are well schooled at it by their cockroach-agents.

I've read your argument and it seems you're convinced everything is the owners' fault but I don't think you get how serious the NHL's loss have been. Both parties couldn't care less about you and me. But there is a reality that sport has changed and I happen to think it is for the worse.

Considering Bryan McCabe doesn't give a crap about me, and considering his family is well off for LIFE, I don't feel particularly inclined to cry for him when he says "he must think about his family". Same for all of those crybabies.

Is that selfish? In a way, I guess it is. I'm thinking about myself. So should you, instead of blindly following a bunch of guys ruining this sport. They are certainly not going to come and fight your battles for you, and you should let them fight their battle and fight yours.

You're a hockey fan. So am I. My interest is to watch hockey. There is no ethical dilemna here. These guys aren't 7 years old working for Nike in some third world country 60 hours a week, you know. They're grown men. And even if the salaries were cut back by 80%, most of them would still be ridiculously wealthy.

Yes, I liked hockey in the old times, when pride and loyalty was the rule rather than the exception. I don't think the players should be treated by slaves but certainly there is a LOT of room for improvements right now.

I don't caare about the owners. I side with them because that's how I like my hockey. I don't care if they make profits. I don't even care if all they think about is money. As long as the sports paper isn't turned into Wall Streets I will be happy.

It's a war between two sides and we fans are in the middle. You bet your ass I am going to think about myself. And I dare say that if you don't do likewise, you're the one who needs to get his priorities straight.

I couldn't care less who is going to earn $1M and who will earn $5M. If that makes me selfish, so be it. I sleep very well and I find my position totally ethical.

I find that your perception of unions is very naive and rather 70s-like, BTW. Unions have abused so much that the current generation and the ones to follow will pay a dear price for all this.

And I still think you totally misunderstand what the owners are asking. NOTHING can garantee profits and the NHL cannot ask for that. Even if the NHL could ask for that, the players wouldn't be the ones they should ask that to. So no, the NHL is not asking for garanteed profits.

It's not asking for anything that is really groundbreaking. CBAs are all about trying to find ways to prosper and make all parties as happy as possible. That's pretty much what the owners and players are trying to do.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 10:57 AM
  #19
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I had written a super-long response to your super-long post earlier today but I guess my computer didn't like me and decided to screw everything up.

I'm not going to type all of this again but I'd like to address the fact you called me selfish about 3-4 times in a single post and explain myself.

See, I think it's very fun if you want to defend players who don't give a **** about you and totally ****ing up the system but you should keep in mind a CBA is all about that. Hockey has become a business, and those players are businessmen.

They're going in there with the intention of taking no prisoners and they are well schooled at it by their cockroach-agents.

I've read your argument and it seems you're convinced everything is the owners' fault but I don't think you get how serious the NHL's loss have been. Both parties couldn't care less about you and me. But there is a reality that sport has changed and I happen to think it is for the worse.

Considering Bryan McCabe doesn't give a crap about me, and considering his family is well off for LIFE, I don't feel particularly inclined to cry for him when he says "he must think about his family". Same for all of those crybabies.

Is that selfish? In a way, I guess it is. I'm thinking about myself. So should you, instead of blindly following a bunch of guys ruining this sport. They are certainly not going to come and fight your battles for you, and you should let them fight their battle and fight yours.

You're a hockey fan. So am I. My interest is to watch hockey. There is no ethical dilemna here. These guys aren't 7 years old working for Nike in some third world country 60 hours a week, you know. They're grown men. And even if the salaries were cut back by 80%, most of them would still be ridiculously wealthy.

Yes, I liked hockey in the old times, when pride and loyalty was the rule rather than the exception. I don't think the players should be treated by slaves but certainly there is a LOT of room for improvements right now.

I don't caare about the owners. I side with them because that's how I like my hockey. I don't care if they make profits. I don't even care if all they think about is money. As long as the sports paper isn't turned into Wall Streets I will be happy.

It's a war between two sides and we fans are in the middle. You bet your ass I am going to think about myself. And I dare say that if you don't do likewise, you're the one who needs to get his priorities straight.

I couldn't care less who is going to earn $1M and who will earn $5M. If that makes me selfish, so be it. I sleep very well and I find my position totally ethical.

I find that your perception of unions is very naive and rather 70s-like, BTW. Unions have abused so much that the current generation and the ones to follow will pay a dear price for all this.

And I still think you totally misunderstand what the owners are asking. NOTHING can garantee profits and the NHL cannot ask for that. Even if the NHL could ask for that, the players wouldn't be the ones they should ask that to. So no, the NHL is not asking for garanteed profits.

It's not asking for anything that is really groundbreaking. CBAs are all about trying to find ways to prosper and make all parties as happy as possible. That's pretty much what the owners and players are trying to do.
Hey Vlad, maybe I wasn't clear enough & I'm gonna take an example out of it to explain my way about the word selfish.

There's a negotiation between the public transportation administration & the bus-subway drivers. You will definitely find some people to say they couldn't care less about who wants what & what is fair as long as he can take the bus everyday or the subway. We live in a selfish era where individualism prime the need to protect people as a group.

Same thing apply is you see a CBA negotiation between the government & the teachers. People won't care who's gonna win as long as people can send his kids to school & go to work.

That's how I see it in your post when I was talking about being selfish. I wasn't you directly even if I was talking to you. It was a generalization of most people here.

They want hockey that's all.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 11:52 AM
  #20
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler

So lemme take a wild guess here. You're going to continue support the status quo and this insane free market thing. Then if the owners bend over (as usual) you're going to be happy. Then things are going to keep on being screwed up. Then when the owners complain, you and all the supporters of this mess are going to point at the fact they all agreed to sign that CBA.
actually what would make me happy is if the owners used every bit of leverage they had to keep salaries to the level they can afford within this CBA.

like the Canucks have done. look, if the Canucks decided they didnt want to extend Todd Bertuzzi and let him rot until he signed what they offered, id support that even if it meant losing a few games. If the Canucks decided they werent going to pay the Sedins what they asked and the Sedins went to Modo, so be it.

Im not one of the fans who out of one mouth whine about the players making too much and then cry that my team wont sign a UFA or wont give my fave player a new shiny contract.

im not one of those fans who out of one side of my mouth call Jeremy Jacobs cheap and not interested in winning and then out of the other side of my mouth say that Tom Hicks is ruining hockey.

so anyhow ... i dont care if the players make 10k or 10m, i just expect that the businessmen who run the NHL use their own brain and not shut down the league because they are too stubborn to run their NHL franchise like they would run any other business they have. Also, if its true that 6 teams make up 75% of the losses, why are we killing the NHL to save those 6 teams ? 6 teams that probably include the NYR, the poster boy for the NHL's salary troubles. Hell, if NYR is really losing the money they say they are, GOOD ON THEM ! They deserve the losses for their foolish handling of their salaries.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 12:01 PM
  #21
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
For the text now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
See, I think it's very fun if you want to defend players who don't give a **** about you and totally ****ing up the system but you should keep in mind a CBA is all about that. Hockey has become a business, and those players are businessmen.

They're going in there with the intention of taking no prisoners and they are well schooled at it by their cockroach-agents.
It's not about defending the players, it's about now putting BLACK & WHITE like so many fans wants to do when it's about taking one side.

The problem I have with you're saying about the players to me is just WRONG !!! You want to put the blame on the people that play the game & you want to clean the people that make this game a business a.k.a the DECISION MAKERS a.k.a the OWNERS & GM's.

The system is like you said ********d up because of those who need to think about make their franchise viable are too incompetent to be there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I've read your argument and it seems you're convinced everything is the owners' fault but I don't think you get how serious the NHL's loss have been. Both parties couldn't care less about you and me. But there is a reality that sport has changed and I happen to think it is for the worse.

Considering Bryan McCabe doesn't give a crap about me, and considering his family is well off for LIFE, I don't feel particularly inclined to cry for him when he says "he must think about his family". Same for all of those crybabies.

Is that selfish? In a way, I guess it is. I'm thinking about myself. So should you, instead of blindly following a bunch of guys ruining this sport. They are certainly not going to come and fight your battles for you, and you should let them fight their battle and fight yours.

You're a hockey fan. So am I. My interest is to watch hockey. There is no ethical dilemna here. These guys aren't 7 years old working for Nike in some third world country 60 hours a week, you know. They're grown men. And even if the salaries were cut back by 80%, most of them would still be ridiculously wealthy.

Yes, I liked hockey in the old times, when pride and loyalty was the rule rather than the exception. I don't think the players should be treated by slaves but certainly there is a LOT of room for improvements right now.

I don't caare about the owners. I side with them because that's how I like my hockey. I don't care if they make profits. I don't even care if all they think about is money. As long as the sports paper isn't turned into Wall Streets I will be happy.

It's a war between two sides and we fans are in the middle. You bet your ass I am going to think about myself. And I dare say that if you don't do likewise, you're the one who needs to get his priorities straight.

I couldn't care less who is going to earn $1M and who will earn $5M. If that makes me selfish, so be it. I sleep very well and I find my position totally ethical.

I find that your perception of unions is very naive and rather 70s-like, BTW. Unions have abused so much that the current generation and the ones to follow will pay a dear price for all this.

And I still think you totally misunderstand what the owners are asking. NOTHING can garantee profits and the NHL cannot ask for that. Even if the NHL could ask for that, the players wouldn't be the ones they should ask that to. So no, the NHL is not asking for garanteed profits.

It's not asking for anything that is really groundbreaking. CBAs are all about trying to find ways to prosper and make all parties as happy as possible. That's pretty much what the owners and players are trying to do.
Also when you talking about the players , it's all about excuses to not see the evidence that most people just want to see the perception instead of going in depth.

which Perception : Players making too much money = teams can't afford it = teams lose money = teams not competitive

In depth =
A) NHL loses money : NHL says 273M$ NHLPA says 224M$

B) Choose whatever you the numbers you want NHL or NHLPA

75% of thoses losses are from 6 teams. (NYR & STL are those I know of)

C) In those 6 teams that loses a TON OF MONEY most are due with
- bad deals with the RENT of the ARENA that many of them make 0$ out of it & if a good management would negotiate those ARENA deal again, they could have make upp to 25,000,000$.

Are bad management such as making a deal to get an arena are part of the CBA ?

D) Let's says 70% of the ''273M$'' is part of bad financial decisions from some of the staff (I'm not talking about an owner or a GM here but a director of operation) that would me that 30% is directly from hockey decision = 60M$.

NHLPA are already offering 5% paycut that would automatically save up to 100M$+ in the owners pocket.

Now I know you're not a financial expert here but something like the owner who's telling you it's all about the players when in fact it's all about who you hired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also will you put 1 example like Bryan McCabe for all the NHLPA members ? come on, this is just perception. A moron is a moron & in every company or syndicat there's some of them.

You are usually one that don't hesitate to point people when they show poor arguments & now you put 1 guy for the fate that EVERY MEMBERS of the NHLPA are as**oles ? That's poor !

You're talking about pride & loyalty, this is a twist version considering you blame the actual players to not having that when it's all about that. Sticking for each other, sticking for what history told you (NOT TRUSTING AN OWNER & OWNERS don't care about the game they care about $).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you are in the middle & that's the sad part about it much like you're in the middle when people in public transportation try to not let the power people abuse your staff. Same thing when nurses or doctors try to defend their people that are having burnouts & depressions because the government pay them very few & expect them, obligate them to work extra shift because they fired people years ago to save money.

Yes you're in the middle but that's the way it is. That does not make them BAD people. For you they are people because you want 1 thing & 1 thing only : HAVING A HOCKEY SEASON or TAKING THE SUBWAY OR THE BUS or HAVING A MEDICAL STAFF IN THE HOSPITALS.

To you it's different because you have the perception that a 45,000$ nurse & a 1M$ hockey players should be put in the same sentence but it is because it's a war between protecting your interest & the interest of the futur generation over the power of the government or an owner that always want to maximize their investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the union being abusive, I agree with you that it's happening & they gained a lot of power over the last 20-30 years (I'm not only talking about hockey) but that doesn't mean their purpose is over.

Banks are making billions every year after slacking over 1,000,000 jobs in 1-2 years. We are talking about billions when they were saying they needed to do this just to be viable.

I know NHLPA got a lot of power but that's maybe you still not trust what the other side is telling you.

To you & so many fans it's 1 way goggle

Owners losing millions vs Players making millions.

looking that way is easy to take a side but that's just plain ignorance to people who just say that because they are fans afraid to lose their franchise , afraid to admit that the people who are working for their loving franchise are idiots or incomptent. It's easier to put the blame on players instead of blaming the director of off-ice hockey operation because the FAN don't know the name of that idiot who does not know how to make his franchise more revenues & deal badly a arena lease or ect...

That's why you have the owners making a lot of PR , they needed that to do a lockout & making it an ''HONORABLE THING TO DO FOR THE LOVE OF HOCKEY'' (SARCASM).

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 12:03 PM
  #22
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Nice posts Russian Fan.

Its assumed that the reason teams are lsoing lots of money is because of the CBA. But only a few teams are losing money, ones that would surprise us according to Saskin, and they are not losing money for hockey player salary related reasons, but boardroom decisions in the world of high finance. If they make make bad corporate takeover decisions, should player salaries have to be lowered. The majority of the money being lost has nothing to do with Holiks salary, overpaid players, arbitration, or any of this. IT is purely boardroom decisions.

Forbes claims the owners are losing $180Mil, the owners say $270Mil, Levitt says $300Mil, the union in negotiations says the owners claim $230Mil. Give or take 20 or 40 mil, they are losing somewhere in there. Its inconsequential really which number as its just an accounting trickery anyway as evidenced by the wildly different suggestions

So who are the 6 teams losing money? Ill make my guesses.

1. NYR. Yes the Rangers are apparently losing money. According to Forbes their debt is equal to their annual revenue. This is almost as bad as western Governments! NYR are a complex web of companies tied together with real estate and cablevision. As well as teams from different sports leagues. Most of their losses have been generated in the boardrooms over corporate acquisitions, cablvision marketing strategies,, shareholder takeovers, government tax battles, these types of things. Not because of player salaries. And even if it were over player salaries, certainly no one would make the case that it demonstrates the current system is unfair because NYR can bid and win the most expensive free agent each year for a decade and have an expansion Tampa Bay team develop a champ before they could buy another one,.

2. NJ. Yes the devils are apparently losing money. One of the most brilliantly managed corporations, even if it means drinking Lou's koolaid. The poor Devils are often held up as the poster boy for what is wrong in the league. They couldnt afford to keep their stars like Holik, Arnott, Mogilny, Nieuwendyk, and lost them to other teams. Oh wait, no its me that uses them as an example as why that isnt the bitter pill its made out to be, nor does it only happen to poor small markets.

The Devils were bought by as part of a larger corporate battle to create an empire to compete with or be be absorbed by the Yankees network empire or something. Their owners bought with deferred cash that became due in a balloon payment last year. The Devils boardrooms were in large corporate takeover negotiations with other cable and sports companies that are long term plans that hit snags in the boardroom battles. They had huge losses last year when the owners balloon payment was due for the purchase of the team, and his plans haddnt materialized as he had originally thought leaving him with out the larger corporation he thought he would have by now. Now the Devils are losing big money, because of the owners acquisition strategies. None of this has anything to do with salaries, it is due to corporate boardroom acquistion and restructuring strategies.

3. StL They claim they were losing $42mil dollars. I guess St louis is so small they can really only afford a $3mil dollar payroll. Somehow they need to claw back $40mil in salaries because they dont make enough money to cover more than a few million in salary expenses. IS that what they are trying to tell us? How can anyone take that number seriously. If they are losing that money, it isnt as a result of payroll, there is something bigger going on, in how he is accounting for payments and ownership of arenas, or corporate strategies.

4. Det. Yes, everyone thinks Detroit is some rich owner who will outspend anyone. This is the same owner that owns the Detroit Tigers. That owned the Red Wings when they sucked, when they almost traded the underachieving Yzerman to us in Ottawa for Yashin, because Yzerman looked like a choker who could never take them to the next level. Detroit has an arena with almost no luxury boxes. Yes the owner spent on salaries, but because it made him money. Yes he is rich but so is every owner. The Oil Tycoons in Calgary would make the same investment if they had developed the team Detroit did. And now Detroit is not winning, not getting all that extra playoff revenue they used to. And so poor Detroit lost Federov and Hull because they another team outbid them for them. And now they are losing money.

5. Phx. As Gretzky said, he knows for a fact the Coyotes organization is losing money. And I believe him. He didnt say why though. The Coyotes are small part of a bigger real estate deal. And the reason the real estate deal is bigger, is because the arena for the coyotes makes that deal for the surrounding land much more valuable with a teams beside it and the 18000 potential fans a game if they develop a winner walking by the new shopping centre door. Without the arena for the Coyotes, the related real estate deal loses much of its lustre. Similar to Ottawa building the Corel Centre in a corn field. Tell me someone didnt make a boatload of money off the surrounding land that now has a highway off ramp to it.

Phoenix has built their new arena. There is a lot of untapped reenue there, and if Colorado can do it there is no reason Phoenix cant as well. But its not like its going to happen overnight either. They have to work long term for it. Its normal for any restaurant or new small business to suffer start up costs, sometimes for several years as they establish themselves. IF they build up too much debt establishing their business, like OTtawa, they go bankrupt, someone else buys it cheap and takes a go at it. Like In Ottawa. Phoenix is losing money, but its not salary related, its business start up cost related.

6. Wash. Well after getting by Ottawa to the Stanley cup finals, they thought they were one missing piece away from going to the Cup. So the owner thought he could do better than his GM, and would spend as if he was marketing AOL stock, to attract new customers. He bought the most expensive, star player Jagr, Jagrs linemate Lang at $5mil and everyone thought, like col with Kariya and Selanne, they had bought the cup, it was unfair, no one could compete. Instead they flame out and have a huge fire sale dumping expensive players for draft picks and losing millions. And people are surprised. Why didnt it work any more than NYR? Must just be bad luck.


So lets say these 6 teams are responsible for $170Mil of the leagues $220mil of losses. None of these are salary related losses, they are owner boardroom losses. The rest of the teams lose $60mil, which is 3% of revenue. Hardly an amount that would send VISA into shocks if this was your pattern. Owners are losing money for things CEOs usually get fired for. Yet Bettman had his contract extended just like Bud Selig did.

Bryden paid $50 mil for Ottawa, Melnyk paid $100mil. WHy would a money losing team double in value?


So you can see why the players are saying why should salaries be capped when the owners losses stem for coporate boardroom decisions unrelated to salary expenses. They could manage their way out with different strategies, not make the players pay for their decisions. In the real world, the owners would be fired, lose their investments as if they were a Nortel shareholder, and new management would come in with a fresh slate and out of debt. But NHL owners should have their money guaranteed. Must be nice.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 12:56 PM
  #23
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
The problem I have with you're saying about the players to me is just WRONG !!! You want to put the blame on the people that play the game & you want to clean the people that make this game a business a.k.a the DECISION MAKERS a.k.a the OWNERS & GM's.
No, I have never tried to do that.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 12:57 PM
  #24
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
So who are the 6 teams losing money? Ill make my guesses.
Theree are way more than just six teams losing money.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 12:59 PM
  #25
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Theree are way more than just six teams losing money.
well the story is that 6 teams make up 75% of the losses.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud 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 01:19 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.