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

Union Meeting

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2004, 06:28 PM
  #1
Infensus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
Union Meeting

Looks like the NHLPA needs to regain control of the troops.
Link

Infensus is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 06:34 PM
  #2
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
i'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that this isn't simply calling guys together to get players to shut up and stay in line and they will actually try to think of ideas to present to owners to re-open talks atleast.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 07:59 PM
  #3
Onion Boy
Registered User
 
Onion Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Japan
Posts: 2,678
vCash: 500
How about an "owner's meeting"?

Onion Boy is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 08:29 PM
  #4
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,197
vCash: 500
Well, hopefully they agree it is time to cave into a cap. Then, the fight will come down to the amount, hard/soft, larry bird rule, etc. If they do, it may get settled in january. If not, and this is a pep-talk about sticking to their guns, we might as well forget about a season.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 08:51 PM
  #5
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Unfortunately I see it as the latter...with players coming out in the press of late, this is probably a rah rah type meeting.

Fish is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 08:52 PM
  #6
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
I'm sorry but I just don't see how a cap could work and I hope the players don't cave in. I mean why should the players give in because the owners can't close the check book? Plus a cap does nothing but ruin the quality of the league, but thats another story. Anyways here's hoping the league and players can at least work out something, but I don't see a cap ever coming into play

rnyquist is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 08:57 PM
  #7
Infensus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
I do not know if we really need an owners meeting. Bettman regularly appears in the press, participated in two town hall meetings, chat conference, etc... Where is Goodenow? He never takes any questions or makes any appearances and has all but disappeared since this lockout has started. If you visit the NHLPA website you never see any comments on the lockout except for the Trevor Linden reprint from the NY Times.

Makes you wonder if Goodenow really has no substance to back up his Levitt report contention, the proposals, and accusations about the league's intentions.

People are siding with the owners right now due to their control of the press in Bettman.

Infensus is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 08:58 PM
  #8
Infensus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
I'm sorry but I just don't see how a cap could work and I hope the players don't cave in. I mean why should the players give in because the owners can't close the check book? Plus a cap does nothing but ruin the quality of the league, but thats another story. Anyways here's hoping the league and players can at least work out something, but I don't see a cap ever coming into play
And once this happens and the checkbooks are closed and nobody signs the high ticket players; how long until the NHLPA yells collusion and goes on strike?

Infensus is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 09:27 PM
  #9
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
I'm sorry but I just don't see how a cap could work and I hope the players don't cave in. I mean why should the players give in because the owners can't close the check book? Plus a cap does nothing but ruin the quality of the league, but thats another story. Anyways here's hoping the league and players can at least work out something, but I don't see a cap ever coming into play
The cap has made the NFL great. Ruin the quality of the league? The league is in disarray. The quality is non-existent. The games are boring as hell. I used to look forward to the national games on ESPN, last year I could care less. I fell asleep watching most of the games, and didnt even watch the finals for the first time in years.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 09:36 PM
  #10
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
I agree that the NFL is a shell of what it once was...there's a couple of other things though that have affected the NFL beyond the cap and that IMO includes the lack of a minor league system on which to call up players in game shape and the need to populate 32 teams now.

The whole parity thing has really hurt the league though, which is one of the reasons why I proposed a cap system that rewards teams for keeping the players they have.

Fish is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 09:40 PM
  #11
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
From a social standard i think all sports are suffering for the above reasons and also because frankly sports are too darn expensive for people in a day in age where costs of living are out the window.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 09:57 PM
  #12
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,279
vCash: 500
parity in sports is BS, i dont' want to watch a bunch of mediocre teams slug it out every game. i want there to be the dominant teams that play great and have great players.

i guess to put it differently...sports in general needs the kind of parity that allows for all teams to have a chance to build themselves into something great and to stay at that level if they can...but sports doesn't need to level the playing field for all teams so they can all suck equally. if you're a good GM, a good owner, etc...you can build your team up right and keep it on top. if you suck, well you suck and shouldn't own a team or be GMing one, so get the hell out of here.

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 10:01 PM
  #13
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 Levitate
parity in sports is BS, i dont' want to watch a bunch of mediocre teams slug it out every game. i want there to be the dominant teams that play great and have great players.

i guess to put it differently...sports in general needs the kind of parity that allows for all teams to have a chance to build themselves into something great and to stay at that level if they can...but sports doesn't need to level the playing field for all teams so they can all suck equally. if you're a good GM, a good owner, etc...you can build your team up right and keep it on top. if you suck, well you suck and shouldn't own a team or be GMing one, so get the hell out of here.
I think you might find the deck is a little too stacked sometimes to stand a good chance at doing that. From the outside looking in it's that simple. From the inside looking out it's simply unlikely.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 10:10 PM
  #14
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,197
vCash: 500
I disagree, I think parity is great. I love the fact that come December 1st, we will still have 26 of the 32 teams still alive for the play-offs. Sorry, but having a few dominant teams is a waste. You sit around all season and wait for the one or two games. Every other game is meaningless as you know there are only 2 maybe 3 teams with a legit shot at winning it all. It keeps fans all over the country interested all the way to the end. MLB is awful. By May you know which teams have a shot at winning. You'll have a few teams battling it out at the end, but most of the league is done in May.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 10:21 PM
  #15
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,625
vCash: 500
now chris pronger calls upon the owners and players to get together

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/natio...ger041021.html

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 10:43 PM
  #16
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
the fact that people are starting to put pressure for meetings is a good sign..i figure this would happen around this time now the everyone is losing $$ on the deal. hopefully the pressure from both sides builds and gets the ball rolling

NYR469 is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 10:22 AM
  #17
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg
The cap has made the NFL great.
I love when people make efforts to equate the NFL w/ the NHL. Apples and oranges. Yes, the NFL has a hard cap. But they ALSO have a huge central revenue source that the NHL cannot touch. Makes a hard cap more liveable. EVERY team contributes to revenue sharing in the NFL. Bettman wants ONLY the top 10 revenue teams to fund the rest of the league. Kind of funny considering that the biggest financial loosers at $43 million are the Rangers, but they are also one of the teams that would be called upon to take up the financial burden of the teams that cannot hack it. In the NFL, there is also a system that takes into consideration signing bonuses and DOES NOT have guaranteed contracts. You CANNOT have a hard cap without doing away with guaranteed contracts.
So, it is highly impractical to use the NFL as a model of what the NHL should strive for. The fact of the matter is that they are UNABLE to run the same system.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 10:47 AM
  #18
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I love when people make efforts to equate the NFL w/ the NHL. Apples and oranges. Yes, the NFL has a hard cap. But they ALSO have a huge central revenue source that the NHL cannot touch. Makes a hard cap more liveable. EVERY team contributes to revenue sharing in the NFL. Bettman wants ONLY the top 10 revenue teams to fund the rest of the league. Kind of funny considering that the biggest financial loosers at $43 million are the Rangers, but they are also one of the teams that would be called upon to take up the financial burden of the teams that cannot hack it. In the NFL, there is also a system that takes into consideration signing bonuses and DOES NOT have guaranteed contracts. You CANNOT have a hard cap without doing away with guaranteed contracts.
So, it is highly impractical to use the NFL as a model of what the NHL should strive for. The fact of the matter is that they are UNABLE to run the same system.
Agreed.
Also , there is no way the NFL players union would agree to their current situation if they previously had a deal that the NHL players union had. There is less of a chance that the NHL players would agree to non guaranteed contracts then to a hard cap IMO.

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 11:14 AM
  #19
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Tb...

you're walking into a pro-owners' hands with those comments. The fact that the NHL does not have a NFL-like TV contract should not come into play when talking about a cap. If the NHL did have a NFL-like cap, then perhaps we wouldn't be talking about this, or the cap would be set at a number quite higher than $31 million. Revenues are revenues. If there aren't enough revenues to pay the bills, then there's a problem. Something does have to give, even in my opinion, as it cannot continue under the current structure (if we are going to have a 30-team league which is another debate), although we all know where I stand on what has to give. But to the original point, the lack of a NFL-like TV contract plays to the owners as they will say how can we pay out these types of salaries when we don't have that revenue source. It's immposible. Of course they're to blame somewhat, but it is what it is.

Fletch is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 11:18 AM
  #20
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
you're walking into a pro-owners' hands with those comments. The fact that the NHL does not have a NFL-like TV contract should not come into play when talking about a cap.
It does when you are talking about revenue sharing. If you want to have an NFL style cap, it means that you should have NFL style revenue sharing. Bettman would never go for that becuae it means that the Carolinas, Pittsburghs, and Nashvilles of the world have to contribute money and not just the Rangers, Flyers, Stars, etc.
There is definetly a problem in todays league. It's how you go about solving it, that counts. The league wants a hard cap. But their reasoning for the cap is to line their pockets. People like you and I think that a luxury tax with stiff penalties would serve the league better.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 12:05 PM
  #21
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
TB's point which I 100% agree with is that you can't possible implement a fair cap that puts the same thresholds on each and every team when you have such a WIDE range of revenue streams being brought in by the various teams.

Bottom line to me is we need fewre teams which would make for a much healthier product as a whole.

6 teams need to go under and get us back to 24.the 6 franchises in the worst financial shape need to go which will significantly improve the talent level of the 24 remaining teams.

JR#9* is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 12:57 PM
  #22
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
That's a bit better explanation..

JR, to which I can apply to TB's cap comment and make more sense of it now. He's basically saying that since there isn't the TV contract, other teams would have to increase their revenues [and profits]by having it provided to them by the top 8 or so teams, including the Rangers who lost $43 million (for which a $31 million cap gives them a $6 million profit (assuming $80 million payroll last season, which was high) and take out revenue for sharing, and I don't understand how the Rangers make money if they don't raise ticket prices or don't make the playoffs, so again, I don't understand the fuzzy math. This would be done as opposed to sharing hundreds of millions in a TV contract. Got it TB, sorry.

Fletch is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 12:59 PM
  #23
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
The cap has made the NFL great?

I don't know. Is it really that exciting to see a team go from Super Bowl to second worst team? How were the Houston Oilers a casualty at one point, ditto Cleveland. If the NHL was moving teams instead of adding teams in the 90s, perhaps this mess wouldn't be as bad.

Fletch is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 01:03 PM
  #24
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
If there aren't enough revenues to pay the bills, then there's a problem. Something does have to give
Problem is, the only "bill" we're talking about is player salaries. What about building agreements? How many of those are unfavorable? Maybe marketing and promotion budgets are skewed. Haven't heard anyone mention executive salaries. Travel budgets. Propane for the Zambonie. If GM's couldn't control their player's salaries, why should I believe they're being thrifty with every other expenditure. THEY'RE NOT!

Arthur Levitt said the NHL lost $273 million. He didn't say player salaries were the cause. Now he's saying we're in an ""endless pirouette around the issues", which leads me to believe that salaries aren't the sole problem. The NHL has basically admitted that Cablevision applies corporate losses to the Rangers to strengthen their position on this subject, and, of course, raise the value of the Cablevision brand. So, if the $40Mil we contributed to those losses is proven to be unassociated with player salaries, why should I believe the other 29 teams aren't doing the same thing?

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
10-22-2004, 01:05 PM
  #25
Onion Boy
Registered User
 
Onion Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Japan
Posts: 2,678
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=patnyrnyg]Well, hopefully they agree it is time to cave into a cap. Then, the fight will come down to the amount, hard/soft, larry bird rule, etc.QUOTE]

But the owners don't want a soft cap, they want a hard cap. In fact didn't the players present the concept of a soft cap which the league rejected?

Onion Boy 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 06:33 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.