HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Owners or Players??

View Poll Results: Owners or Players?
Owners 33 38.82%
Players 34 40.00%
Undecided 18 21.18%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2004, 10:15 AM
  #1
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,422
vCash: 500
Owners or Players??

Who are y'all with, the owners, players or undecided? I'm with the players. If owners don't want to pay players, they don't have to. Is it unfair to the smaller market teams? Sure, so tax the piss out of the bigger boys, bring in revenue sharing that makes sense, and be on your way.

Fletch is online now  
Old
09-10-2004, 10:43 AM
  #2
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Who are y'all with, the owners, players or undecided? I'm with the players. If owners don't want to pay players, they don't have to. Is it unfair to the smaller market teams? Sure, so tax the piss out of the bigger boys, bring in revenue sharing that makes sense, and be on your way.
I'm with neither, both are at a fault...And, to be honest, I couldn't give a flying **** at a rolling doughunt about what happens to the NHL after listening to both sides...Die NHL, Die...As if it isn't already dead in the US.....besides, college and HS sports are good enoug for me compared to caring about greedy, have-it-all ********.....Wow, shicked that scvmbags was beeped out!

Larry Melnyk is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:00 AM
  #3
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Usually, I would be with the owners. However, in this case, I think that Bettman is seeking to aleviate the NHL's mistakes by only making the players pay. NO ONE forced the owners to hand out the contracts that they did. NO ONE forced the NHL to over expand. NO ONE forced the NHL to go into markets that it had no buisiness being in.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:01 AM
  #4
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Sure, so tax the piss out of the bigger boys, bring in revenue sharing that makes sense, and be on your way.
The problem is that Bettman seems to want the league to have 100% control over salaries. While he is on such a kick, no deal will get done.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:15 AM
  #5
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,219
vCash: 873
I see a problem in making the players responsible

for the owners continued spending beyond their own means.

Do the players ask for the Sun, Moon and the Stars when seeking a new contract? without question as is their right, it is also the right of an owner to spen what is appropriate for him to spend and still not only ice a competitive team but turn a profit.

I've never been of the belief that it is the players responsibility or obligation to ensure that the owners turn a profit. It's their responsibility and obligation to play hockey in accordance with the terms and conditions of their contracts.

This could get very very ugly.

pld459666 is online now  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:20 AM
  #6
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Nothing like a bunch of millionaires facing off against another bunch of millionaires...

Fish is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:25 AM
  #7
tony
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: new jersey
Posts: 194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Usually, I would be with the owners. However, in this case, I think that Bettman is seeking to aleviate the NHL's mistakes by only making the players pay. NO ONE forced the owners to hand out the contracts that they did. NO ONE forced the NHL to over expand. NO ONE forced the NHL to go into markets that it had no buisiness being in.
well said. seems to me that the nhl is a business like any other. if you own the company you assume the risk not the employees. if you can't make ends meet then you fold up the tents and let the employees find work elsewhere. the nhl expanded at their own peril and now they're looking to the players for relief.


Last edited by tony: 09-10-2004 at 11:48 AM.
tony is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:38 AM
  #8
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
I'd have to side more with the players, but they're not without their faults as well, they really dont' deserve to get payed as much as they do, just look at attendance and TV ratings, they're crazy if they want baseball type salaries. On the other hand maybe Mr. Bettman should have thought about crap like this while he was having no problem diluting the talent pool by adding teams over and over again. I know I'm going to sound like a typical Rangers fan but the small market teams have no one to fault but themselves. If Bettman wants a hard cap than I as a player say well then we want a league minimum salary as well, meaning anyteam would can't afford X-amount of dollars is put up for sale and is sold to the highest bidder at the end of the year.

Bettman is a smug little b******, and I just wish that some mafia had ties to the NHL and maybe could arrange a little accident involving a zamboni and Mr. Bettman.

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:51 AM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,422
vCash: 500
Correction, Fish...

millionaires facing off against billionaires and the billionaires are the ones not willing to budge.

And I agree 100% TB. The league has shown little flexibility.

And Larry...I've been waiting for a post like that from you. You've awaken, just in time for what would've been a new season...

Fletch is online now  
Old
09-10-2004, 12:04 PM
  #10
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
millionaires facing off against billionaires and the billionaires are the ones not willing to budge.

And I agree 100% TB. The league has shown little flexibility.

And Larry...I've been waiting for a post like that from you. You've awaken, just in time for what would've been a new season...
Millionaires, Billionaires, Schmillionaires....it's not like they're hurting for money on either side.

And to tony's point, a very similar situation is that which the big airlines face with the pilots and other unions. No one ultimately benefits if everything folds...obviously the owners have plenty of blame, and are the ones that created the problem, but if the players don't help fix it then they'll find that some or all of them will be without work.

I look back now and realize that the Bruins have been doing the right thing, despite the criticism. If the league operated the way they did (and they had a higher standard of ownership to avoid the Baldwins and Spanos of the world) then perhaps we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But the bottom line is there's a problem that needs a solution, assigning blame will not get you any closer to a solution, and it's something that will require both sides to budge.

Fish is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 12:39 PM
  #11
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,422
vCash: 500
I think you're right, Fish...

which is why I did side with the players. Giving back money (money that was contracted to them in good faith), is a start. Taxing owners that decide to spend more than a certain amount may be a deterrent to some owners from spending so much money (and if it isn't, then isn't it part their collective problem for driving up the salaries). To me, the league's taken a stance of the hard cap, which really is a tough one to swallow. Actually, the hard cap isn't as tough to swallow as the amount of $31 million (of course this is probably negotiable so let's say they'd go to $32.5 million). That could end up being a real drastic cut in salary for many, which is tough to take and you would lose some star talent to Sweden, Czech, Finland and Russia as some players may take the stance of why come to the NHL if I'm not going to make the big bucks when I can make a decent pay but stay home close to my family.

I dunno. The NHLPA can be blamed for sitting on their arses for so long. This is a proposal that could've been made a while ago, but of course they waited until a week before the lockout to present it.

Fletch is online now  
Old
09-10-2004, 01:31 PM
  #12
xnyker
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: maritimes
Posts: 64
vCash: 500
Ultimately, the solution will have to be some sort of free market enterprise. Expansion may be a good thing, but the NHL or the players should not have to guarentee you make money or win. It's been demonstrated recently you don't have to have the biggest salaries to win or make money.

xnyker is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 02:07 PM
  #13
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
I dunno. The NHLPA can be blamed for sitting on their arses for so long. This is a proposal that could've been made a while ago, but of course they waited until a week before the lockout to present it.
And you might very well ask why they waited so long...because they wanted to leverage the deadline as much as possible. The problem is that these two guys feel they have to win in the eyes of their constituents...this isn't about being fair or doing the best for the league, it's about getting as many concessions from the other side as possible.

I don't care for the owners arguments, and I have little sympathy for a player making millions of dollars who feels he needs to be in a union.

Fish is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 02:12 PM
  #14
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
The NHLPA can be blamed for sitting on their arses for so long. This is a proposal that could've been made a while ago, but of course they waited until a week before the lockout to present it.
Actually, this lattest proposal by the players is similar to the other proposal that Bettman rejected 4 months ago. He is not willing to budge off of a "hard-cap". To the players, a luxury tax system is a compromise. Bettman is not interested in a compromise. He is only interested in dictating his terms.

"And you might very well ask why they waited so long...because they wanted to leverage the deadline as much as possible."

I do not think that is true at all Fish. This is now the 2nd proposal that Bettman rejected. He rejected the old one and that one offered 1) rolling back salaries to levels that existed a decade ago 2) controlling more salaries of entry-level players & 3) a luxury tax system.
That proposal was rejected a while ago. So saying that the union waited too long is not accurate. At least they now have had 2 proposals that were shut down. The league and Bettman only made one proposal (albeit in 6 different parts.....but all of the choices were carbon copies of each other).


Last edited by True Blue: 09-10-2004 at 02:16 PM.
True Blue is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 02:25 PM
  #15
tony
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: new jersey
Posts: 194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
Millionaires, Billionaires, Schmillionaires....it's not like they're hurting for money on either side.

And to tony's point, a very similar situation is that which the big airlines face with the pilots and other unions. No one ultimately benefits if everything folds...obviously the owners have plenty of blame, and are the ones that created the problem, but if the players don't help fix it then they'll find that some or all of them will be without work.

I look back now and realize that the Bruins have been doing the right thing, despite the criticism. If the league operated the way they did (and they had a higher standard of ownership to avoid the Baldwins and Spanos of the world) then perhaps we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But the bottom line is there's a problem that needs a solution, assigning blame will not get you any closer to a solution, and it's something that will require both sides to budge.
i totally agree with your point on the bruins and it kinda of proves my point in my earlier post. ultimately it's the owners that set market value not the players. a player can ask for whatever he chooses but if the owner stands firm and doesn't pay over market the player will be left with little choice. he can either sit out or sign for fair market. i dont't think anyone will argue against the thought that expansion severely depleted the talent pool. with that said the nhl (bettman) should've realized that supply and demand would drive the price for free agent talent higher but they continued to expand. while i do think salaries are too high i don't think a cap is neccessarily the answer. it's of my opinion that the market needs to naturally correct by having some of the non-profitable teams fold subsequently flooding the market with players. i trade for a living and i know plenty of sales guys and traders that were making big bucks that were let go as banks and dealers merged. when they hit the street they were all competing for a finite amount of jobs and most of them were forced to take jobs for less money or change careers.

tony is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 03:03 PM
  #16
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
There is of course one big difference between traders and players...traders seldom have their contract guaranteed, and also make money based on bonuses/commissions rather than base salary. If players were recompensed the same way then we'd also not be in this mess...in fact guaranteed salaries have been a big contributor IMO to the escalation, and when you add in the Flyers and Rangers of the league who are willing to take on these contracts that other teams signed, it's just a mess.

Add in unrestricted free agency which was introduced in the last CBA, and it's artificial maket conditions that it created for 31+ year olds.

Finally, free market conditions lead to consolidation in the private sector, but as we see the level of consolidation can get quite high in specialist industries. The NHL would still have to step in at some point and artificially determine how many franchises would be allowed to remain...and we'd end up with maybe 6-8 clubs who could spend like no tomorrow and the remainder who'd be in a similar position as the ones today.

After all, it's not the Rangers, Flyers, Stars, Wings or Leafs who are hurting financially...

Fish is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 03:36 PM
  #17
tony
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: new jersey
Posts: 194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
Finally, free market conditions lead to consolidation in the private sector, but as we see the level of consolidation can get quite high in specialist industries. The NHL would still have to step in at some point and artificially determine how many franchises would be allowed to remain...and we'd end up with maybe 6-8 clubs who could spend like no tomorrow and the remainder who'd be in a similar position as the ones today.

After all, it's not the Rangers, Flyers, Stars, Wings or Leafs who are hurting financially...
the nhl is a free market and that's exactly my point. all free markets naturally expand and contract so why should the nhl be any different? the only teams to fold would be the teams that couldn't stand to foot the losses anymore. it's not like the nhl would be buying any of these teams out. as far as having 6-8 teams spending like no tomorrow....they really wouldn't have to because with a couple of teams worth of players searching for a finite number of roster spots there would have to be a salary correction. you do make very good points about guaranteed contracts and free agency. clearly both of those issues need to be addressed if the league is serious about putting a business model together that actually makes fiscal sense. banking is definitely a "what have you done for me lately" business and that's why you do see big bonuses and few guarantees. again, why should the nhl be any different?


Last edited by tony: 09-10-2004 at 03:54 PM.
tony is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 03:43 PM
  #18
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,422
vCash: 500
A luxury tax would cut salaries...

to a certain extent, I believe. Even though the Rangers have so much money, it's still a business in the end and to spend $80 million on payroll would cost a good deal more for the same people and same product. There would still be inequities as some teams can't afford to even spend $30, but I don't think you'd see as wide a spread, and you won't see as high an average. This isn't baseball where the Yankees spend oodles of money because they don't give a frig about the luxury tax. No hockey organization can make up the luxury tax in other way as the Yankees can. Heck, even with escalating salaries, the 300 seats will be as much this season as they were 8-10 years ago (I believe they were $35 in 1995 or 1996 - eventually made it to $40 and supposedly will be back to $35). And television contracts aren't getting much bigger.

Fletch is online now  
Old
09-10-2004, 04:19 PM
  #19
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
the nhl is a free market and that's exactly my point. all free markets naturally expand and contract so why should the nhl be any different? the only teams to fold would be the teams that couldn't stand to foot the losses anymore. it's not like the nhl would be buying any of these teams out. as far as having 6-8 teams spending like no tomorrow....they really wouldn't have to because with a couple of teams worth of players searching for a finite number of roster spots there would have to be a salary correction. you do make very good points about guaranteed contracts and free agency. clearly both of those issues need to be addressed if the league is serious about putting a business model together that actually makes fiscal sense. banking is definitely a "what have you done for me lately" business and that's why you do see big bonuses and few guarantees. again, why should the nhl be any different?
I don't necessarily see 46 players added to a pool of 644 making much of an impact in salaries...if anything it just pushes the 46 worst paid players out of the league. I figure you're probably looking at needing to fold 6 teams which would give you 138 players...that would make a bit of an impact, although for how long is debatable.

Ultimately it only takes 2 teams to bid up the salary of a player. A team like the Rangers could build a team of multi-millionaires (like the Yankees) and still have money left over...there are other teams who can do likewise. The end result is you can have 6-8 teams of high-priced star players against the remaining 8-10 of lesser scale...so then another franchise folds, and another...ultimately you could end up with another "original 6" if you follow that logic. Kind of like how the Investment Banking community has ended up in recent years.

While that might work in Investment Banking (I would argue that consolidation is not all it's cracked up to be), it doesn't IMO help build a successful sports league. While hockey is a business, it relies on a healthy league in order to prosper...something the business world doesn't necessarily need.

Fish is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 05:51 PM
  #20
little a from da bx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Who are y'all with, the owners, players or undecided? I'm with the players. If owners don't want to pay players, they don't have to. Is it unfair to the smaller market teams? Sure, so tax the piss out of the bigger boys, bring in revenue sharing that makes sense, and be on your way.
im with neither, i am undecided. basically both need to come to an agreement and give in a little, this seems a bit childish. the nhl cant afford a hit like this, **** man there are more golf fans than hockey fans what the hell is that about. so the NHL is like a dying sport so if any of these poeple on either side care about taking care of there familys and having a job they better resolve especially by sept 15

little a from da bx is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 07:46 PM
  #21
OldBlueshirt
Registered User
 
OldBlueshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Joisey
Country: United States
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Usually, I would be with the owners. However, in this case, I think that Bettman is seeking to aleviate the NHL's mistakes by only making the players pay. NO ONE forced the owners to hand out the contracts that they did. NO ONE forced the NHL to over expand. NO ONE forced the NHL to go into markets that it had no buisiness being in.
I couldn't have said it better. And during all this bullsh!t, we did see some over-the-top contracts this summer for a few "franchise" players in the league. Even during the labor talks, some owners still couldn't restrain themselves.

OldBlueshirt is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 06:32 AM
  #22
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Melnyk
I'm with neither, both are at a fault...And, to be honest, I couldn't give a flying **** at a rolling doughunt about what happens to the NHL after listening to both sides...Die NHL, Die...As if it isn't already dead in the US.....besides, college and HS sports are good enoug for me compared to caring about greedy, have-it-all ********.....Wow, shicked that scvmbags was beeped out!
{rubs eyes} Larry? Is that you.......?

Seriously though I think both sides shot the sport in the foot. I agree as a whole a little more with the league, but that isn't saying much.

I don't view it as a right and wrong question so much as which one has a slight lead in the wrong department.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:43 AM
  #23
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,104
vCash: 500
The Dolans still own the Rangers, right?

A no-brainer, I voted for the players (though the NHLPA certainly doesn't remind me of Joe Hill).

klingsor is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 11:14 AM
  #24
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I look no further than the Rangers signing Nylander this summer as to why the small market teams and as a whole the league need a cap.

The market is decided by the same six or seven teams every time.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 11:41 AM
  #25
NYRGoalieGlut*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,775
vCash: 500
The players, it seems to me that Bettman is being an unreasonable stubborn a/sshole. The NHLPA r at least trying to be flexible, yet Bettman, isn't budging at all.

NYRGoalieGlut* 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 04:09 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.