HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Simple Poll -- whose side are you on?

View Poll Results: If you had to choose a side .......?
Players 29 19.73%
Owners 118 80.27%
Voters: 147. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2004, 10:49 AM
  #1
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,105
vCash: 500
Simple Poll -- whose side are you on?

Just wanted to get a quick take on this issue from the minds on this board (although I'm fairly sure I know the answer..)

All the complexities of the issue aside, just down to the bare bones -- who do you agree more with, the players or the owners? (and I'm excluding both/neither as an option)

Thanks

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 11:34 AM
  #2
shakes
Ancient Astronaut
 
shakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,007
vCash: 500
neither. Unlike most of you I have a hard time feeling sorry for millionare players and billionare owners. But just based on principles, I'm more on the side of the workers

shakes is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:16 PM
  #3
Chili
Registered User
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: la Belle Province
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 1,953
vCash: 500
Neither as well.

I'm on the side of fans who want affordable hockey and no work stoppages. Both sides need to focus on resolving their differences insteading of trying to win fan support.

Chili is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:19 PM
  #4
tripledekehockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: pittsburgh pa
Country: United States
Posts: 2,256
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to tripledekehockey Send a message via AIM to tripledekehockey
neither -- i am on the fans side

tripledekehockey is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:10 PM
  #5
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,105
vCash: 500
I figured "neither" would be the overwhelming choice, that's why I left it off...just wanted to gauge where people fall if they're forced to take a side.

Personally, I agree. Players and Owners can do what they like and take their time while the fans and NHL staffers get the shaft. If I have to take a side though, it's the owners, considering the NHLPA has put up no good reason for not having a cap other than "we don't want one", and have made very litle effort. A 5% rollback and luxury tax over 60m is a joke. I'm not saying the owners are blameless -- they are complicit in this mess -- but at least they seem to have made concerted efforts with a variety of proposals (the $300m war chest of fan money is a little sickening though.)

Personally I think they should be forced to meet regularly (daily, weekly, whatever...how about locked in a room?) until this is worked out.

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:23 PM
  #6
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,561
vCash: 500
I've been on the players side, and i wont be changing sides. I do think the players are a bit overpaid and some owners are losing alot of money. But there is alot of other factors than besides just the players incomes. It's not as simple as Bettman wants to make us believe.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:27 PM
  #7
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,511
vCash: 500
I am an adamant owner backer. Very few things the players could say that would sway my opinion.

The system is screwed. It needs to be fixed.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:30 PM
  #8
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
I am an adamant owner backer. Very few things the players could say that would sway my opinion.

The system is screwed. It needs to be fixed.

Let me ask you a question George. If you own a company, and the man in charge of your company was losing you 20 million dollars a year would you keep him employed?

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:40 PM
  #9
Pavel
Registered User
 
Pavel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Houston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripledekehockey
neither -- i am on the fans side
AMEN!!

Pavel is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:42 PM
  #10
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Let me ask you a question George. If you own a company, and the man in charge of your company was losing you 20 million dollars a year would you keep him employed?
It isn't that simple JW. I am certain most losses are approved through ownership.

Let me ask you the same questions that I ask everyone.

1. You are the Rangers, your revenue is $70 Million a year. You determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $7 million dollars. You sign him.

2. You are the Pittsburgh Penguins, your revenue is $40 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $4 million dollars. The player won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the Rangers 40 goal man. Not coming to a deal, he files for arbitration.

3. You are the agent for the Penguins 27 year old. You file for arbitration using the Rangers player as the comparable. You are awarded $6.75 million. The Penguins have a choice to either not compete on the ice or financially go in the red.

The owners aren't saying they didn't contribute to the mess, but that also doesn't mean they should continue with the same system they have. They need 30 financially and competitively viable franchises.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:53 PM
  #11
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
1. You are the Rangers, your revenue is $70 Million a year. You determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $7 million dollars. You sign him.

2. You are the Pittsburgh Penguins, your revenue is $40 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $4 million dollars. The player won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the Rangers 40 goal man. Not coming to a deal, he files for arbitration.

3. You are the agent for the Penguins 27 year old. You file for arbitration using the Rangers player as the comparable. You are awarded $6.75 million. The Penguins have a choice to either not compete on the ice or financially go in the red.

The owners aren't saying they didn't contribute to the mess, but that also doesn't mean they should continue with the same system they have. They need 30 financially and competitively viable franchises.
1. You are Microsoft, your revenue is $700M a year. You determine that your 27 year old computer programmer is worth $70k.

2. You are eStartup, your revenue is $7 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your 27 year old computer programmer is worth $40k. The programmer won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the M$ computer programmer. Not coming to a deal, he is hired by M$.

3. The eStartup has a choice of not being competitive in the marketplace if they let him go or being financially in the red.

Maybe the software industry needs a salary cap.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:01 PM
  #12
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
It isn't that simple JW. I am certain most losses are approved through ownership.

Let me ask you the same questions that I ask everyone.

1. You are the Rangers, your revenue is $70 Million a year. You determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $7 million dollars. You sign him.

2. You are the Pittsburgh Penguins, your revenue is $40 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $4 million dollars. The player won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the Rangers 40 goal man. Not coming to a deal, he files for arbitration.

3. You are the agent for the Penguins 27 year old. You file for arbitration using the Rangers player as the comparable. You are awarded $6.75 million. The Penguins have a choice to either not compete on the ice or financially go in the red.

The owners aren't saying they didn't contribute to the mess, but that also doesn't mean they should continue with the same system they have. They need 30 financially and competitively viable franchises.
If an owners is allowing his GM's to go into the red he has no reason to blame the players at all. Sometimes you need to look in the mirror to find the problem.

1st i wouldn't pay my 27 year old forward that much money. And if he wants that money and wont pay until he gets it, i would make the smart hockey decision to trade him to a team foolish enough to pay him. I would also have to have faith in my GM to make the right trade. I could end up a Chara and Spezza if he does his job. Or i could end up with a Reasoner and Hetch if he cant do his job. And lets use the Rangers as an example. Not only are they not making the playoffs and are losing money, no one can defend why Sather is still employed. What about St Louis who has been claiming to lose 20 plus million dollars year after year. How is Pleau still employed? They are not any closer to the cup than they were before they bought KT and Weight.

All i'm saying is everyone knew this day was coming yet, it stopped no one from adding payroll. The NHL's numbers point that out, year after year salaries went up and these teams knew they were losing money. Dont you all find it hard to believe all these successful businessmen turn into a bunch of morons once they get their hands on a NHL franchise. Cause if you believe Bettman 2/3 of them dont have a clue whats going on.

I bolded the last part of your statement because what you are saying isn't what the owners are saying. The owners have said or done nothing in terms of revenue sharing. If you want all 30 teams to be on the same levels shouldn't their revenues be the same? Even if salaries come down and the owners get their 31 million dollar caps. Some teams payrolls will be 1/3 less of the other teams. So they might be able to get better players cheaper, but so will the rest of the teams able to afford a 31 million dollar roster. I think NGO put it best when he said it's like the big market owners made a deal with the small market owners in saying we'll accept a salary cap but wont share any revenue.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:26 PM
  #13
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
1. You are Microsoft, your revenue is $700M a year. You determine that your 27 year old computer programmer is worth $70k.

2. You are eStartup, your revenue is $7 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your 27 year old computer programmer is worth $40k. The programmer won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the M$ computer programmer. Not coming to a deal, he is hired by M$.

3. The eStartup has a choice of not being competitive in the marketplace if they let him go or being financially in the red.

Maybe the software industry needs a salary cap.
In that industry, getting rid of the competition is a good thing. A dog-eat-dog world where you make it to the top by putting out a quality product or service, and those who can't keep up; too bad.

In the NHL, getting rid of the competition is a bad thing. You need other teams for the games to actually take place, driving them out of the league means you have one less opponent with which you can play your games and make your money against. In the short run, lossing a team here or there could possibly improve the situation. But in the long run, it will end up costing you revenue that you could have obtained from playing that team (whoever they may be).

Two different markets. The same scenario plays out differently in both of them. (Sorry for butting-in George, you know better than most here that I'm not shy about throwing in my $.02).

cws is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:28 PM
  #14
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
1. You are Microsoft, your revenue is $700M a year. You determine that your 27 year old computer programmer is worth $70k.

2. You are eStartup, your revenue is $7 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your 27 year old computer programmer is worth $40k. The programmer won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the M$ computer programmer. Not coming to a deal, he is hired by M$.

3. The eStartup has a choice of not being competitive in the marketplace if they let him go or being financially in the red.

Maybe the software industry needs a salary cap.
and the software industry won't get a salary cap unless the computer programmers' union agrees to one.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:29 PM
  #15
HfxMoose
Registered User
 
HfxMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,899
vCash: 500
Neither.

HfxMoose is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:12 PM
  #16
rec28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,007
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to rec28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
...Or i could end up with a Reasoner and Hetch if he cant do his job. ....
Not to threadjack, but this is an idiotic statement. Look a little deeper into the circumstances surrounding the Weight deal & you'll find that Lowe did very well.

rec28 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:29 PM
  #17
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
Let me ask you the same questions that I ask everyone.

1. You are the Rangers, your revenue is $70 Million a year. You determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $7 million dollars. You sign him.

2. You are the Pittsburgh Penguins, your revenue is $40 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $4 million dollars. The player won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the Rangers 40 goal man. Not coming to a deal, he files for arbitration.

3. You are the agent for the Penguins 27 year old. You file for arbitration using the Rangers player as the comparable. You are awarded $6.75 million. The Penguins have a choice to either not compete on the ice or financially go in the red.
I agree with you George... and I side with the owners (however not a hard cap solution)...

But if the Pittsburgh Penguins are in a 're-building mode', IMO, at any rate (even if they could afford him) they should be looking to trade that 27 year old 40 goal scorer for one or two young stud players - to help with their re-building process - and to keep payroll in check during the 'growing pain years'... Even if they could afford him, IMO, the money is best spent trying to develop the young 'core' FASTER and BETTER...

It's the normal evolution of a franchise... Once Pittsburgh slowly and properly develops their young 'core', they'll start having success year after year... and thus, they'll start to generate millions of dollars in profit - and be able to afford their 27 year old 40 goal when it is the appropriate time for them to have that 27 year old 40 goal scorer on their team... When the team has a 'core' that grew up together, is around 27 years old, and they are one of the favourites to win the cup or go far in the playoffs year after year...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 09-21-2004 at 03:33 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:33 PM
  #18
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,749
vCash: 500
Awards:
How about option "C": The Fans?

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:38 PM
  #19
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I agree with you George... and I side with the owners (however not a hard cap solution)...

.
The question wasn't about the hard cap.(So you and I agree there) I support the owners in getting a system that works.

Personally I like the idea of a luxury tax that taxes the heck out of overages caused by free agency, and a reduction in tax for players developed by the team itself.

I think that players drafted or signed to their first contract as UFA by a team should could 75% towards a tax so teams could be rewarded for developing their own talent.

As for those that dispute what I say about the two 27 year old 40 goal scorers, you can't use any other business as a model because none of those businesses are governed by a CBA.

If the other businesses were governed by a CBA, then there would be no such thing as wrongful dismissal.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:51 PM
  #20
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
As for those that dispute what I say about the two 27 year old 40 goal scorers, you can't use any other business as a model because none of those businesses are governed by a CBA.
In every other industry, you have to pay the market rate for employees. Why should the NHL be any different? Why should the Penguins get a player at a discount because they can't afford him?

If the Penguins can't pay NHL salaries, why should they have an NHL franchise? Why should the fans in Pittsburgh get NHL hockey at a discount from what the fans in Vancouver or Ottawa pay?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:59 PM
  #21
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
Personally I like the idea of a luxury tax that taxes the heck out of overages caused by free agency, and a reduction in tax for players developed by the team itself.
I agree... I'd also tax the heck out of overages caused by trades in addition to free agents... I'd tax heavily any player acquisition that doesn't involve the draft or a first contract as an UFA... All the tax money gets collected by the league and distributed equally amongst the teams (to help reward teams that are properly home growing their 'core')...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:19 PM
  #22
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Im on the side of the fans too. Its just that I think if fans pay attention to what people around the NFL are saying, they will realize that the parity the NFL has is not so great after all. NFL was always great. Part of american culture, a great tv time slot, sunday afternoons, all american boys and cheerleaders. But its not great because of its parity. In fact, they are all having a good 2nd look at that idea. I think we should too. The grass may not be greener.


Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
It isn't that simple JW. I am certain most losses are approved through ownership.

Let me ask you the same questions that I ask everyone.

1. You are the Rangers, your revenue is $70 Million a year. You determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $7 million dollars. You sign him.

2. You are the Pittsburgh Penguins, your revenue is $40 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $4 million dollars. The player won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the Rangers 40 goal man. Not coming to a deal, he files for arbitration.

3. You are the agent for the Penguins 27 year old. You file for arbitration using the Rangers player as the comparable. You are awarded $6.75 million. The Penguins have a choice to either not compete on the ice or financially go in the red.

The owners aren't saying they didn't contribute to the mess, but that also doesn't mean they should continue with the same system they have. They need 30 financially and competitively viable franchises.
First off, why would NYR willingly pay $7mil for an RFa who's value is clearly on $4mil in the league?

Second off, its a nice theory, but in practice, it has been all small market teams setting the salary bars for RFAs. NYR never has any of consequence.

Third, why is it always Pitt matching NYR's offers? YOu know it can happen the other way around too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
In the NHL, getting rid of the competition is a bad thing. You need other teams for the games to actually take place, driving them out of the league means you have one less opponent with which you can play your games and make your money against. In the short run, lossing a team here or there could possibly improve the situation. But in the long run, it will end up costing you revenue that you could have obtained from playing that team
I dont think this is really getting rid of the competition as in shutting them down. Why would the team move? Its not the markets fault. The owner would go bankrupt if he has spent foolishly as any businessman would. IF NYRs figures are to be believed, they are heavy in debt. That must be what happens when teams lose money. Lets assume they arent lending the money to themselves at treadmill to obscurity rates, but are borrowing from the bank. They have to be making these payments to the bank or explaining why they arent. But if they go bankrupt, they lose money, and someone else buys the team at a better rate and carrys on responsibly. Happened in Buffalo. Happened in Ottawa.

Vancouver old owner sold 5 years ago because he said he couldnt make any money off the team, salaries were out of control. A new owner bought in, managed it properly and made a killing. Was Griffiths wrong or foolish?

I dont thikn the other owners like Jacobs and karmanos are trying to drive Detroit out of business, they are trying to hurt Illitch personally. Thats just the princes they are.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 07:15 PM
  #23
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,168
vCash: 500
Us fans are just as guilty as the owners and the players. If an owner takes the right approach and runs a financially sensible team and takes a hard line against salaries, then it often sucks. The fans turn on the GM/Owners as being "cheap", don't go games because the team sucks which means less revenue, etc. Ask Chicago fans since the team sucks is run by tightasses.

"we want a better team" -> more spending to compete - > higher ticket prices -> "ticket prices are too high and the team stll isn't good enough"

Repeat cycle.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 07:22 PM
  #24
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Maybe Chicago is without a plan. What are yyou gonna do, force him to spend. Oh that oughta work.

What if they epxlained to the fans what they were doing. When OTtawa came into the league, they explained we were on a 7-11 year plan to build a team. We had to start from less than scratch, the worst expansion draft in history, and had to wait several years for an NHL arena to be built. But when fans knw the plan , well mostly they bought in.

Washington fans seem to be buying into the rebuilding plan. And they have some good prospects.

NYR fans seem to be almost beggin for the rebuilding to start.

Boston is a bad example to use, because like Wirtz in Chicage, their owner Jeremey Jacobs is a hard line radical slime ball. No cap is going to fix that

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 10:02 PM
  #25
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
I've been on the players side, and i wont be changing sides. I do think the players are a bit overpaid and some owners are losing alot of money. But there is alot of other factors than besides just the players incomes. It's not as simple as Bettman wants to make us believe.
me too - the very unpopular - player's side

mr gib 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 01:03 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.