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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

A question for the NHLPA supporters

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-23-2004, 10:31 PM
  #101
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,317
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Perpetual parity
Lets replace it with perpetual disparity.We should seek out and destroy the draft/RFA.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:31 PM
  #102
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
There is a reason why there is a certian amount in which a team must spend, so team will not go dumping salaries so they can free up space to sign a big time free agent.

Hard cap at 38 Million min spending at 33 million.

You can still create a dynasty with this system, that is what great teams do, unlike the beloved Red Wings throwing around 70 million to buy cups.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:59 PM
  #103
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
I agree. Why should the responsible teams have to bail out the teams that spend like they are making NBA or NFL revenues.
Because those teams have revenues that can support those payrolls. If they don't, they lose big money like the Capitals, Rangers or Blues. Sounds good to me.

Quote:
It sounds like the league is saying, "theres more than enough food to go around, as long as the everyone eats responibly. And since history has taught us that this wont happen, we need some sort of rules to ensure this. Then we can all be fed."
That's not what the league is saying at all. Everybody starts with a different amount of food. The league thinks nobody should eat more than the guy with the emptiest plate. The NHLPA says the guy with the most food should have the most to eat because that's the way the world is supposed to work.

The choice is stark:

1) Endure at least a year without hockey and then the following year will be marred by lawsuits and labour acrimony around an imposed settlement. Assure an ongoing labour battle with the players over every issue.

2) Keep the same deal and let two, four or six teams fold their tent if they can't make a go of it. The ones willing to compete, compete.

That's a no-brainer for the hockey fan. Kill the runts.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 12:00 AM
  #104
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Thats such a simple minded solution. Kill the runts of the litter so the rest of the herd can live.
And once those inconvenient snot nosed brats are disposed of so that the fatties of the NHL can continue to do what they do best, guess what?

Those middle market teams are now the small market teams, and the cycle begins anew. Check out the Blue Jays of the early 90's, now look where they are...their 45M/yr player budget that was buying them back to back world titles now barely gets them out of the AL basement a little over 10 years later.

This attitude of screwing the small guys over with nary a backwards glance just for the sake of keeping the elite awash in caviar and meth might work in the world of Bill Gates, but for a professional sports league all it does is make its death a slow and lingering one. And personally I'm getting damn disgusted with how fans are turning on each other in this forum...after reading some of these mean spirited threads, apparently Oiler fans are now mewling welfare deadbeats that are better off seen than heard. What elitist drivel.

Will the last NHL franchise standing that can afford to pay these spiralling salaries please turn out the lights when you're done? Thanks.

Digger12 is online now  
Old
09-24-2004, 12:00 AM
  #105
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Exactly. And for the same reasons why should successful teams sufffer with worse draft picks? There should be no draft at all, let every team bid for any player/prospect they want. Dynasties are good, let the richest teams build never ending dynasties.
That's the default. All the NHL has to do to get this system is push the NHLPA into decertifying.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 12:20 AM
  #106
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
This attitude of screwing the small guys over with nary a backwards glance just for the sake of keeping the elite awash in caviar and meth
Its not about screwing over the small guys. In fact this system has quite clearly protected them and they have had better results than the large markets recently as the trends seem to indicate. I dont remember any large market cinderella runs. I dont remember many of the top 50 highest paid players in the finals. I dont remember any of the large markets making it recently as the guard is changing.

Its about ensuring all the markets are NHL markets and are capable of charging NHL prices that a winner does and pay the salaries that a winner does.

They dont need to do be able to do this when they arent winning. In fact if they arent winning, its because they havent developed enough players worthy of spending that money on.

There is a threshold for market size to compete in this league - the best league in the world. If like Colorado the first time they tried, they couldnt meet that threshold, they fold, move, try again.

I agree with Bettman, all 30 markets currently should be able to find a way to use the system to develop a good, better, great team that makes money, or increases in franchise value, without whining that someone else is spending more. I think they can do that now. Al they need to do is stop the whining. And some cba tweaking and market resetting

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 01:27 AM
  #107
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Why would a hard cap would be bad for the NHL?
...
I simply want to know why you think a hard cap would be bad for the NHL.
because to get the hard cap, they have to basically drag the league, its players and its reputation into the mud and devalue the history of the league to such a degeree thats i dont see why they need to take that risk when they havent even explored other options.

as well, parity is bad. remember, if every team has a chance to win, every team also has a chance to lose. how would you like your home team to do everything right only to see it lose to a team that is still doing everything wrong. wouldnt you like to know if your team is smart like OTT, it can be elite ? or would you like to know that even if you do it like OTT, you wont be able to keep all players and a team like NYI can not only poach from your hard work, but also remain just as good as you.

thats two two reasons I am anti cap. as well, the owners have hit a single already from the players, they should go for the double and not the home run.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 01:29 AM
  #108
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Without a cap, the complaint from small teams is that they don't generate enough revenue to compete on the UFA market with the big market teams.
here is what i dont get. so what ? why care if you cant spend alot of money to get an old player who wont help your team and win and might even make it worse ?

i have yet to see any benefit to the UFA market. so why is it such an issue, since its of no benefit to sign expensive UFA's, why moan that you cant do it.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 01:32 AM
  #109
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
I don't agree with that, but let's assume you're right. I'm not quite sure why that's a bad thing for the NHL. What it would mean is that every team with above average management and player development would get their share of playoff appearances. That would increase the fan bases for the teams that need to do so while not losing any significant portion of any established fan base.

In all honestly, the concern you present is simply the concern of the selfish fan. I'm not saying that you're selfish, just that it's typically an arguement presented by someone who wants their team to be contending for a Cup ever year.
because under today's CBA, the teams that are built properly usually are the ones who benefit the most. the teams that try and outspend everyone else (when they are in the wrong cycle) usually do lousy (see NYR, WSH, DAL, STL).

more than half the league has made it to the final 4 at least once in the last 10 years, and you think MORE teams deserve a chance ? why ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 01:40 AM
  #110
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Why would a hard cap would be bad for the NHL?

I don't want to know why you think there shouldn't be a cap.

I don't want to know who you think is at fault for the higher salaries.

I simply want to know why you think a hard cap would be bad for the NHL.
its the distrust issue - if a hard cap is imposed - guys like bill wurtz - gary bettman - and the owner dick in boston - will work very hard to market the game to the max - this will increase their revenues greatly and the players share remains at the capped level -

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 01:44 AM
  #111
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
luxury tax.

NBA style soft cap.

100% revenue sharing by the owners.
the owners making money do not want to share with the poor ones - they want the players to foot the bill

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 01:44 AM
  #112
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Under the NFL's system you get to cut that unhappy, overpaid #1 center and keep your 2nd overall pick and young defenseman.
and how is this fair to small market, done everything right, OTTAWA ?

They dealt Yashin for Spezza and Chara.

Why should we shut down the league to save NYI from Milbury at the expense of OTT ?

So in your NHL, OTT cant even benefit from the "improvements", but NYI can.

I see. Sounds real fair to bring OTT down to NYI's level.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 03:56 AM
  #113
Diaboli
Registered User
 
Diaboli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: City once voted as F
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
its the distrust issue - if a hard cap is imposed - guys like bill wurtz - gary bettman - and the owner dick in boston - will work very hard to market the game to the max - this will increase their revenues greatly and the players share remains at the capped level -
So you think, that the cap would stay the same for a hundred years or more, depending on how long there is life (human) on the planet.

Diaboli is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 06:43 AM
  #114
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 11,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Some NFL teams like the Lions go through continuous rebuilding. I don't see Miami being near the top this year. Nor St. Louis or Tampa. New England has already lost key players off their team due to a cap. Philly's remaining time is short. GB has rebulit pretty well, but they are nowhere near as good as they were in the mid 90's. Tennesee was forced to get rid of a player who had played his entire career for the franchise due to the cap.

I'm sure NHL contracts will go down under a cap. But I think its totally within reason to assume one team will be able to offer $1-2 million more for a star than your team can, and he's gone.
Every team goes through rebuilding for goodness sakes. Some are better at it than others...I.E. some have better management, better drafting and better player development than other teams. Some teams are perpetually bad at this it has nothing to do with the cap. The Lions have not been bad for years because of a cap but because of poor personel choices and inner club turmoil. Some teams are always good with these factors and have consistently good teams.

You don't see come of those teams being good this year...so what. The fact still remains that in the NFL where 37% of teams make the playoffs (as opposed to 53%) there are a number of teams that are expected to be there year after year (and those that aren't) and USUALLY are there. Teams go through cycles in which they are at the top for 5 or 6 seasons and then rebuild. Again so what? The NHL currently does the same. Every team as they improve talks about the "window of opportunity". There are no more dynasties under the current NHL CBA but there are some teams that are always playoff contenders and have playoff appearances. These are teams that typically have good coaching, good management, good goaltending, good chemistry and a decent farm system to continually feed players to the parent team...those factors will not change under a cap system and in fact come to the forefront. You know hockey factors determining success...for shame.

Players move from team to team it is the nature of professional sports. IT's the same whether or not there is a cap or not. Yes teams may lose players due to a cap but many teams lose players now for salary considerations and there is no cap for goodness sakes. What team hasn't? Detroit, Toronto, Colorado and the Rangers. Every other team has lost players due to payroll issues. Players will move more under any new system as you can guarantee that players will get free agency earlier and it will be easier to become one. But in the end they are simply hockey decisions that need to be made...the decisions aren't any different from what EVERY team needs to make now given they all do have a budget. The difference is that a cap should ensure viability of a gate driven league. It ensure players salaries are predictable and that joe blow with a $75 million payroll can't escalate salaries the way he can now. It should ensure a healthy league and allow it to grow in poularity without worrying about finances...that in turn grow the players salaries. It can also ensure (with a minimum cap) that players salary never dip below a certian mark. A luxury tax system does not provide these assurances even if correctly instituted.

tantalum is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:05 AM
  #115
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
It all depends on what product you want to see on the ice. If it's a product where every team hovers around the .500 mark and no fan has the ability to identify with "franchise" players because players change teams too often, then it's for you. I, for one, prefer the "status quo".
I sure wish someone could provide a single shred of evidence that all teams would hover around .500 if the league had a cap, because all the current evidence says that's total BS.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:08 AM
  #116
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
St Louis losses are CBA related?
Actually, yes. When the new ownership took over in 1999 they felt that they couldn't remain competitive without increasing the payroll, and I'm sure other teams such as Calgary would do the same if they had the Walmart family as owners also.

While it turned out to be a bad decision, there is no denying that the decision was related to the CBA.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:13 AM
  #117
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
its the distrust issue - if a hard cap is imposed - guys like bill wurtz - gary bettman - and the owner dick in boston - will work very hard to market the game to the max - this will increase their revenues greatly and the players share remains at the capped level -
That doesn't fly. Caps are based on a percentage of revenues. As revenues increase, the cap increases.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:16 AM
  #118
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
and how is this fair to small market, done everything right, OTTAWA ?

They dealt Yashin for Spezza and Chara.

Why should we shut down the league to save NYI from Milbury at the expense of OTT ?

So in your NHL, OTT cant even benefit from the "improvements", but NYI can.

I see. Sounds real fair to bring OTT down to NYI's level.

DR
I fail to see how it is unfair to Ottawa that a cap would have resulted in them getting less for Yashin. That simply makes no sense at all.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:17 AM
  #119
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
the owners making money do not want to share with the poor ones - they want the players to foot the bill
Please do some research... this is your 2nd comment now that is totally wrong.

The proposals the NHL owners have offered have included revenue sharing.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:21 AM
  #120
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
I fail to see how it is unfair to Ottawa that a cap would have resulted in them getting less for Yashin. That simply makes no sense at all.
but isnt the CBA you back supposed to help teams like OTT, when in fact I just showed you how it will hurt them.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:23 AM
  #121
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
because to get the hard cap, they have to basically drag the league, its players and its reputation into the mud and devalue the history of the league to such a degeree thats i dont see why they need to take that risk when they havent even explored other options.
A cap would drag the league's reputation in the mud? Umm.. Okay.

Quote:
as well, parity is bad. remember, if every team has a chance to win, every team also has a chance to lose. how would you like your home team to do everything right only to see it lose to a team that is still doing everything wrong.
First of all, parity is good. The reason you don't see this is because a) you're so illogically against a cap that you see what you want and b) you completely misunderstand the type of parity that a cap would create.

What it would not do is result in 30 .500 teams. What it would do is allow teams to almost always be within a couple years of being a contending team. And that's exactly where this league needs to be to build the fan base in cities that are lacking in that department.

Quote:
wouldnt you like to know if your team is smart like OTT, it can be elite ? or would you like to know that even if you do it like OTT, you wont be able to keep all players and a team like NYI can not only poach from your hard work, but also remain just as good as you.
Your logic is ass backwards. A team like Ottawa would THRIVE under a cap system because they have been so good at developing players. Imagine if over the past 5 years as they were turning out all these great players every other team in the league had the same payroll as them. Do you think they would have won a Cup by now? Obviously there's no guarantee for that sort of thing, but their chances would have been a hell of a lot better if they weren't competing with the Red Wings of the league who go out and pick up a few UFA's every year.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:24 AM
  #122
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
but isnt the CBA you back supposed to help teams like OTT, when in fact I just showed you how it will hurt them.

dr
You didn't show that at all. All you showed me was that under the current system Yashin was able to demand so much money that the Senators had to let him go. Under a cap, his demands would have been a lot lower because there would be no high spending teams for the Senators to trade him to.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:30 AM
  #123
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
You didn't show that at all. All you showed me was that under the current system Yashin was able to demand so much money that the Senators had to let him go. Under a cap, his demands would have been a lot lower because there would be no high spending teams for the Senators to trade him to.
i showed you that under today's CBA, OTT was able to trade Yashin for Spezza and Chara and under a CBA you support it would not have been possible.

who cares that Yashin is overpaid, OTT wins that deal even if Yashin was playing for 300,000.

so how does a capped NHL serve OTT ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:44 AM
  #124
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i showed you that under today's CBA, OTT was able to trade Yashin for Spezza and Chara and under a CBA you support it would not have been possible.

who cares that Yashin is overpaid, OTT wins that deal even if Yashin was playing for 300,000.

so how does a capped NHL serve OTT ?

dr
And I showed you that under a cap, Yashin would have never held out and Ottawa would have been able to retain their player.

Ask Calgary fans what they'd rather do right now... keep Iginla or trade him for a draft pick and a prospect.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:49 AM
  #125
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
And I showed you that under a cap, Yashin would have never held out and Ottawa would have been able to retain their player.

Ask Calgary fans what they'd rather do right now... keep Iginla or trade him for a draft pick and a prospect.
1) why on earth would OTT prefer to keep Yashin even at a reduced rate ? under a cap, they would be STUCK with him, thats my point !

2) how can you compare Iginla to Yashin ? Iginla is 10x the player Yashin is, so of course CGY doesnt want to lose him.

As well, CGY can afford to pay Iginla 7.5m per season, who says they have to trade him ?

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 07:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.