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.

Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-20-2004, 02:47 PM
  #1
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

Quotes from McKenzie:

"It is not as simple as saying these guys created their own mess, too bad for them," TSN hockey expert Bob McKenzie said. "At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. When Titanic hit the iceberg, nobody was asking if the captain was at fault or not. It was 'man the lifeboats!' "

Yep, so let's get "cost certainty" so that we never have a Titanic situation again.

"I don't think the NHLPA could care less if four to six teams went down the drain. Some people would say that is a loss of jobs. If you got the truth serum out with the players, they are less interested in preserving 100 to 150 jobs than they are in maintaining the salary levels or a reasonable facsimile for the better players. I honestly believe that 150 of the lowest-paid players in the NHL would get thrown under the bus in a heartbeat if the balance of the membership could maintain their income."

I agree. It is about greed on the player's part.

McKenzie: "The easy answer for me is the NFL has a cap, the NBA has a cap, why shouldn't the NHL have a cap? The players would say 'because we don't want one.' Is that a good enough reason?

"I am sure there is some system with a cap that could work."


I agree, not a very good reason why the NHL shouldn't enforce "cost certainty."

McKenzie Rulez!!

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 02:55 PM
  #2
Bicycle Repairman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,695
vCash: 500
McKenzie is a Megalencephalic blowhard. Say Hockey Night in Canada (ergo the CBC) came up and offered him a huge raise to jump ship I somehow doubt he'd care one iota what the network's bottom line was like.

Bicycle Repairman is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:00 PM
  #3
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 50
Yeah, McKenzie nailed it. "We don't want it" isn't a good enough reason. They don't actually have a good reason. Goodenow has all but admitted himself that it's all about the money (no big surprise). So, yeah, greed factors in quite a bit.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:21 PM
  #4
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
What do you all think the owners are in it for? They want a cap because they can maximize profits that way. It has NOTHING to do with competitive balance or anything else. Pure greed.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:27 PM
  #5
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
What do you all think the owners are in it for? They want a cap because they can maximize profits that way. It has NOTHING to do with competitive balance or anything else. Pure greed.
Well, if pure greed = not wanting to lose tens of millions of $$$, I really think you are on to something.

Sammy* is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:30 PM
  #6
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
Well, if pure greed = not wanting to lose tens of millions of $$$, I really think you are on to something.
We all know that both sides are greedy. The reason we have a lockout is because each side thinks they're justified in being as greedy as they are.

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:38 PM
  #7
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman
McKenzie is a Megalencephalic blowhard. Say Hockey Night in Canada (ergo the CBC) came up and offered him a huge raise to jump ship I somehow doubt he'd care one iota what the network's bottom line was like.
Would you quit a good paying job in a finacially sound company for an excellent paying job in a company that was financial trouble?

I'm not sure that I would.

West is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:39 PM
  #8
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by West
Would you quit a good paying job in a finacially sound company for an excellent paying job in a company that was financial trouble?

I'm not sure that I would.
If your salary was guaranteed, you most likely would. Hmm...guaranteed salaries, financially troubled companies...where have I heard that before?

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:41 PM
  #9
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman
McKenzie is a Megalencephalic blowhard. Say Hockey Night in Canada (ergo the CBC) came up and offered him a huge raise to jump ship I somehow doubt he'd care one iota what the network's bottom line was like.
That is very short sighted and childish of you to say.
1 - That's his job, and
2 - are you a hockey fan or not?

If your answer is yes, then check back into the REALTIY MOTEL where most of us choose to spend some time, and look at the mess that this league is in. I understand that the owners created this mess, and I am not saying that the players are wrong for trying to get as much money as they can, but the game should it continue without cost certainty is not going to make it. Selfishly and realistically, I hope there are some teams that are forced out. It will make the product better, which will make it more entertaining for the fans, and that will draw sponsors and new fans to the sport. The way things have been going I don't think this game is drawing any new fans in the States, as evidenced by no major TV deals. Why should the sport suffer for the sake of teams that don't have a hope in hell of making a serious go of it anyway?

Say what you want about Bob McKenzie, but if you are a hockey fan, he speaks the truth and he is very good at what he does. You may not like what he has to say, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 03:55 PM
  #10
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
That is very short sighted and childish of you to say.
1 - That's his job, and
2 - are you a hockey fan or not?

If your answer is yes, then check back into the REALTIY MOTEL where most of us choose to spend some time, and look at the mess that this league is in. I understand that the owners created this mess, and I am not saying that the players are wrong for trying to get as much money as they can, but the game should it continue without cost certainty is not going to make it. Selfishly and realistically, I hope there are some teams that are forced out. It will make the product better, which will make it more entertaining for the fans, and that will draw sponsors and new fans to the sport. The way things have been going I don't think this game is drawing any new fans in the States, as evidenced by no major TV deals. Why should the sport suffer for the sake of teams that don't have a hope in hell of making a serious go of it anyway?

Say what you want about Bob McKenzie, but if you are a hockey fan, he speaks the truth and he is very good at what he does. You may not like what he has to say, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
The problem I have with McKenzie is when he makes these statements that are "for the good of the game" types of things and yet the end result only benefits the owners and not the good of the game at all. He says that the players would likely allow contraction because they don't really care about the lower wage earners. That's probably true. But he needs to examine the owners with the same scrutiny instead of allowing them a free pass. He seems to be saying that even though the owners are at fault for putting the league into financial trouble, the game needs to be fixed so NHLPA get on side and owners, you're entitled to make mistakes.

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:00 PM
  #11
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
The problem I have with McKenzie is when he makes these statements that are "for the good of the game" types of things and yet the end result only benefits the owners and not the good of the game at all.
Oh. I was under the impression that players benefited from outrageous salaries, and that they'll continue to even under a salary cap.

How does it not benefit the game at all?

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:01 PM
  #12
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Yeah, McKenzie nailed it. "We don't want it" isn't a good enough reason. They don't actually have a good reason. Goodenow has all but admitted himself that it's all about the money (no big surprise). So, yeah, greed factors in quite a bit.
I agree. I keep hearing that hockey players by and large are among the more intelligent of the major sports. That doesn't mean as far as I.Q. levels are concerned. But rather very knowledgable about the goings on in their sport and the ramifications of this lockout.

Well, Buzz Hargrove (President of CAW - Canadian auto workers) is no stranger when it comes to negotiating deals on behalf of his many constituents. When asked his opinion on the labour stoppage in the NHL he said that "If I had to tell the many thousands of people I represents that they would not be working for a year, I would out of a job".

Think about it, it makes a lot of sense! How are you dealing in the best interests of your players Mr. Goodenow if it is in their best interests to play the game and you are basically telling them that they won't for an entire year.

I have read on other threads that Goodenow and Saskin won't be paid during the lockout...that makes sense too, because they haven't done anything to warrant them being paid.

When you hear retired players giving advice to younger players its always the same thing...Enjoy every minute of your career, because it goes very quickly. With that in mind, how can these players want to lose an entire year of what is already a short career? Why waste a years worth of income? Many veterans are looking at 1 - 2 years left to play, do you think they want to be put out to pasture under these circumstances? They don't want to be remembered like this. They want to continue to put their stamp on the game that has afforded them all of the finer things in life. It is lunacy, and it will blow up in their faces. The owners will break the union if they do not start to concede some serious points in the new CBA.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:04 PM
  #13
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
The problem I have with McKenzie is when he makes these statements that are "for the good of the game" types of things and yet the end result only benefits the owners and not the good of the game at all. He says that the players would likely allow contraction because they don't really care about the lower wage earners. That's probably true. But he needs to examine the owners with the same scrutiny instead of allowing them a free pass. He seems to be saying that even though the owners are at fault for putting the league into financial trouble, the game needs to be fixed so NHLPA get on side and owners, you're entitled to make mistakes.

Right or wrong, the owners make it possible to have this great game. They are under a completely different set of scrutiny. They are not being paid in direct co-relation to how they perform on the ice. Guaranteed contracts are ridiculous in todays sports world. Why should the owner have to take all the risk? Give the players some incentive to remain at the top of their game.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:06 PM
  #14
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Oh. I was under the impression that players benefited from outrageous salaries, and that they'll continue to even under a salary cap.

How does it not benefit the game at all?
If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?

Regardless of whether players' salaries are outrageous or not, if the money that teams save from a cap ends up going to the owners as profits (which they are entitled to take) then it does nothing for the good of the game. If McKenzie said that the owners have a right to make money and the NHLPA refuses to see that, then okay, that's a fine statement. Instead, he seems to be saying, in my opinion, that the NHLPA doesn't actually care about preserving jobs, they just want to maintain the top end of the salaries for the best players, which is bad and therefore they should just agree to a salary cap to help out the owners. That isn't too convincing to me.

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:10 PM
  #15
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
What do you all think the owners are in it for? They want a cap because they can maximize profits that way. It has NOTHING to do with competitive balance or anything else. Pure greed.
We live in a greedy economic system... I mean, all owners of all companies want to maximize profits! So evil, so greedy! Communism, here we come!

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:10 PM
  #16
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
Well, Buzz Hargrove (President of CAW - Canadian auto workers) is no stranger when it comes to negotiating deals on behalf of his many constituents. When asked his opinion on the labour stoppage in the NHL he said that "If I had to tell the many thousands of people I represents that they would not be working for a year, I would out of a job".

Think about it, it makes a lot of sense! How are you dealing in the best interests of your players Mr. Goodenow if it is in their best interests to play the game and you are basically telling them that they won't for an entire year.
I think the players will lose this one as well. However, I see why they've taken their position. First of all, history has shown that players' unions have fought to the very bitter end to prevent a salary cap from being put in place. The NFL union was broken over that issue. The NBA union only agreed to a salary cap after public opinion turned against them and their own membership became divided. For players who are used to the ever increasing salaries, a salary cap is death, the NHLPA will do anything to stop it from happening.

As for Goodenow, he has every reason to be confident, rightly or wrongly. In his history, he's seen the owners cave into him without fail. He's seen his association and the agents absolutely dominate arbitration, contract negotiations, etc. He has no reason to think the owners won't cave again. He thinks he has all the leverage. I think he's wrong this time, but I can see why he thinks he's right.

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:17 PM
  #17
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?
Problem is that the individual salaries won't be "capped". Also, btw, most workplaces have a "cap" on how much you can earn in a position (ie: scale might be $12 to $18/h).

Besides, if in this case, everyone was earning $0.05 per day and you were earning $8, what would you say if the owner told you: "I can't operate profitably unless we revise your salary to $5. It's that or nothing since I can't go on paying you that much."? If the most you could earn in other places around the world was $4, agreeing with the owner actually means you'll still be making $1 more than if the league closed. Not good enough for you?

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:28 PM
  #18
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
We live in a greedy economic system... I mean, all owners of all companies want to maximize profits! So evil, so greedy! Communism, here we come!
A salary cap is is communistic.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 04:34 PM
  #19
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?
How am I pocketing the extra $3? My payroll's $150 but I'm only making $115.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 05:04 PM
  #20
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
A salary cap is is communistic.
What's wrong with communism, as you put it, in pro-sports?

I personally don't prefer the hard cap, but think that revenue sharing must go hand-in-hand with a cap, and you don't see the owners insisting it is necessary.

I'd like to see a looser cap that would reward the positive management of teams, that gives the advantage of drafting well or having professional scouting that can pick diamonds in the rough up cheaply. Part of that is to increase the draft age, so it is less of a gamble and a little more likely of a science. Let teams draft a set amount of underage players, or specify it for certain rounds of the draft.

If the owners are stupid enough to put themselves at risk, I don't think the players should be held responsible for the owners mistakes. However, I think it's important for teams to be able to maintain their roster without gutting it for financial concerns unless they choose to.

Guest is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 05:12 PM
  #21
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
What's wrong with communism, as you put it, in pro-sports?

I personally don't prefer the hard cap, but think that revenue sharing must go hand-in-hand with a cap, and you don't see the owners insisting it is necessary.

I'd like to see a looser cap that would reward the positive management of teams, that gives the advantage of drafting well or having professional scouting that can pick diamonds in the rough up cheaply. Part of that is to increase the draft age, so it is less of a gamble and a little more likely of a science. Let teams draft a set amount of underage players, or specify it for certain rounds of the draft.

If the owners are stupid enough to put themselves at risk, I don't think the players should be held responsible for the owners mistakes. However, I think it's important for teams to be able to maintain their roster without gutting it for financial concerns unless they choose to.

Well, there's nothing wrong with communism in and of itself, just that it is impossible to acheive, and every attempt at it has failed. For communism to work, you need total 100% cooperation from everyone inviolved. It can't happen in real life, and it certainly can't happen in pro sports.

the looser cap would be kinda like socialism, I guess. So why don't all the canucks want it?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 05:28 PM
  #22
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,411
vCash: 500
Let's take this one step further...

What if the owners get a cap they want, 31 million dollars.

They are still pulling in 80-100 million roughly (I don't know I'm pulling a number out of my head) with ticket sales, local TV contracts, what little merchandizing they have...

And instead of going, hey let's cut ticket prices (which is outrageous), they pocket the money instead and then take it a step further and RAISE ticket prices, making it 110 million next season and then another 120 million the next...

Is that fair?

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 05:34 PM
  #23
top_gun36
Hometown hero
 
top_gun36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 994
vCash: 500
Even if they do have a cap @ $31 million, what happens to the teams that are over tha cap...kick players off the roster until they reach the cap

top_gun36 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 05:36 PM
  #24
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,411
vCash: 500
Fine them heavily?

Or a percentage that is put into a pool and distributed to the 5-10 small market teams?

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 06:17 PM
  #25
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,570
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?

Regardless of whether players' salaries are outrageous or not, if the money that teams save from a cap ends up going to the owners as profits (which they are entitled to take) then it does nothing for the good of the game.
Sure it fills the pockets of the rich revenue clubs, but over all it helps. It helps the snaller clubs compete on the ice. It helps the small clubs remain financial viable. It gives more fans a chance to feel positive about their club, its future and their cup chances. The more clubs the more players get employed (and higher wages through talent dispersal).

So it does help.

me2 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 11:26 AM.

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.