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
Notices

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.

Listening to Robert Esche make me ill.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-02-2004, 06:51 PM
  #1
shayne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ontario
Posts: 668
vCash: 500
Listening to Robert Esche make me ill.

He won't accept a 100 million dollar salary cap....HUH?????
bettman is not a fan of the game... Bettman never talks about losing one nhl job or folding one franchise for the fans who love the game, bettman has fought for the canadian franchises.
Bettman is a madman...Bob Goodenow is the david Koresh of the union cult.

This is f@#$%^&&* disgusting. If i were an owner i would declare an impasse immediatly, have a 25 million dollar salary cap and open their doors. F@#k the players :mad:

shayne is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:10 PM
  #2
Dave is a killer
Dave's a Mess
 
Dave is a killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mount Juliet
Country: Italy
Posts: 26,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shayne
He won't accept a 100 million dollar salary cap....HUH?????
bettman is not a fan of the game... Bettman never talks about losing one nhl job or folding one franchise for the fans who love the game, bettman has fought for the canadian franchises.
Bettman is a madman...Bob Goodenow is the david Koresh of the union cult.

This is f@#$%^&&* disgusting. If i were an owner i would declare an impasse immediatly, have a 25 million dollar salary cap and open their doors. F@#k the players :mad:
Bettman isn't even asking for $25 million cap...I believe the # was 30 something mil

Dave is a killer is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:26 PM
  #3
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shayne
He won't accept a 100 million dollar salary cap....HUH?????
bettman is not a fan of the game... Bettman never talks about losing one nhl job or folding one franchise for the fans who love the game, bettman has fought for the canadian franchises.
Bettman is a madman...Bob Goodenow is the david Koresh of the union cult.

This is f@#$%^&&* disgusting. If i were an owner i would declare an impasse immediatly, have a 25 million dollar salary cap and open their doors. F@#k the players :mad:
You would be found guilty in court of not bargaining in good faith, then your plan for replacement players would not be allowed. The league must prove it made every effort to avoid an impasse before one can be declared. Frankly meeting with the players 0 times in two months (Sept 9 was the last official bargaining session) will not show that they bargained in good faith and the PA has a hell of a case against replacement players.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:29 PM
  #4
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by shayne
He won't accept a 100 million dollar salary cap....HUH?????
bettman is not a fan of the game... Bettman never talks about losing one nhl job or folding one franchise for the fans who love the game, bettman has fought for the canadian franchises.
Bettman is a madman...Bob Goodenow is the david Koresh of the union cult.

This is f@#$%^&&* disgusting. If i were an owner i would declare an impasse immediatly, have a 25 million dollar salary cap and open their doors. F@#k the players :mad:

Shayne, you need to stop holding your feelings in, my man. Don't be afraid to express yourself.

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:33 PM
  #5
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
You would be found guilty in court of not bargaining in good faith, then your plan for replacement players would not be allowed. The league must prove it made every effort to avoid an impasse before one can be declared. Frankly meeting with the players 0 times in two months (Sept 9 was the last official bargaining session) will not show that they bargained in good faith and the PA has a hell of a case against replacement players.
I beg to differ. Even Ted Saskin foolishly admitted today on tv that Bettman has been trying to negotiate a cost certaintly system for the past 5 years. It's the players that are blindly following their leader into an era of lost jobs, lower pay, fan disinterest and disgust with overpaid players and a NHL that by the time it gets started again the players average salary will fall well below the 1 million mark as the league loses fans support value and interest. There best deal should have been made weeks ago. Now the offer goes down and their value decreases with each and every passing day.

eye is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:34 PM
  #6
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shayne
He won't accept a 100 million dollar salary cap....HUH?????
bettman is not a fan of the game... Bettman never talks about losing one nhl job or folding one franchise for the fans who love the game, bettman has fought for the canadian franchises.
Bettman is a madman...Bob Goodenow is the david Koresh of the union cult.

This is f@#$%^&&* disgusting. If i were an owner i would declare an impasse immediatly, have a 25 million dollar salary cap and open their doors. F@#k the players :mad:
Bettman has fought for the Canadian franchises??? I think people in Quebec City and Winnepeg would tell you he pushed them out the door!!!

Bettman never talks about losing one NHL job?? tell that to the people in the NHL offices and team offices around the league who have been laid off as a result of an owner imposed (and bettman recommended) lockout.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:36 PM
  #7
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
I beg to differ. Even Ted Saskin foolishly admitted today on tv that Bettman has been trying to negotiate a cost certaintly system for the past 5 years. It's the players that are blindly following their leader into an era of lost jobs, lower pay, fan empathy disinterest and disgust with overpaid players and a NHL that will not by the time gets started again the players average salary will fall well below the 1 million mark as the league loses fans support value and interest.
And don't forget there's a very good chance that if they don't settle this soon the players will be coming back to an NHL with several fewer teams. This, more than anything else I believe, is what motivates guys like Dagneis and Commodore to speak out while guys like Pronger could give a flying (expletive). Pronger will still play in a 24-team league. Commodore will not.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:38 PM
  #8
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
From the Canadiens board, a very well informed viewpoint

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minos
There are problems in the NHL and everyone - even the players - acknowledge that. The players have put offers on the table that address the problems. There's no doubt that a combination of revenue sharing and a luxury tax would solve the leagues problems, but the owners aren't even willing to negociate. I'm not sure how so much misinformation has been passed around (and seemingly accepted) concerning the player's position. They are not looking for more, they're not even looking for the status quo. They're offering to roll back their own salaries, lower signing bonuses, lower the cap on rookies, accept a luxury tax (which despite what has been said here, will lower team pay rolls) etc. but the league isn't even willing to talk unless a cap is on the table.

The league's position is tyranical, undemocratic, anti-capitalist and is a rejection of all the things we claim to value of as society. It's amazing how corporations love free markets when the pressure is used to oppress workers but when one of the few examples of their system benefitting the workers emerges suddenly they want to abandon their own system.

If less money is spent on player salaries the money is going straight into the owners pocket. The fans won't benefit in any way. They've already told us that ticket prices won't drop if there's a salary cap. They've said that the market dedictates ticket prices. Essentially what the owners are saying "A free market system to determine player salaries isn't fair to us, we need protection from the market. But sorry fans there's not savings in any of this for you, we have to sell our tickets according to what the market can bare." Ownership greed and hypocracy is astounding, yet fans are lining up to support them because we can't afford tickets and we're angry (jealous?) that NHLers earn as much as they do. Where's the genuine discussion of how much the owners are making?

Owners have every right to make money, I'm not against that AT ALL! They take the risk, they put up the cash etc. and they should be rewarded for that. But they need to realize that their product is their players, and without their players they have absolutely no revenue streams. No TV deals, no merchandise, no consession stands, no parking lots, nothing at all without the players.

The players have shown good faith in wanting to negociate. They've made six offers that have all been rejected and the league hasn't offered a single counter offer. They're not negociating.

The league has problems, but the league can be fixed. Revenue sharing, luxury taxes, greater restrictions on free agency, lower bonuses, give management arbitration rights (take a player to 'court' if he doesn't produce at the level expected of his salary), etc. there are LOTS of possible fixes, but the league is focused on one. It's obvious who's being reasonable here...

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:47 PM
  #9
jpsharkfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shayne
He won't accept a 100 million dollar salary cap....HUH?????
bettman is not a fan of the game... Bettman never talks about losing one nhl job or folding one franchise for the fans who love the game, bettman has fought for the canadian franchises.
Bettman is a madman...Bob Goodenow is the david Koresh of the union cult.

This is f@#$%^&&* disgusting. If i were an owner i would declare an impasse immediatly, have a 25 million dollar salary cap and open their doors. F@#k the players :mad:
I am not as passionate, but I agree completely. The players have once again managed to come off looking like spoiled little children lacking logic and common sense. It does not take a rocket scienctist to figure out that any business that pays out 73% of its revenues in salary will eventually have to close its doors. The players still believe that the Owners will cave.....but why would they when many franchises will lose less money if there is no season!

On the other hand (five fingers, couldnt resist ) many of the comments being made by both sides are just part of the game. Right now it is an intricate dance and they are both just taking the reguired steps. We will see no resolution until someone is willing to step out of the box, draw outside the lines,stop trying to save face, and compromise. Right now it seems like that is not going to happen until h**l freezes over. :mad: :mad:

jpsharkfan is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:48 PM
  #10
jpsharkfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
I beg to differ. Even Ted Saskin foolishly admitted today on tv that Bettman has been trying to negotiate a cost certaintly system for the past 5 years. It's the players that are blindly following their leader into an era of lost jobs, lower pay, fan disinterest and disgust with overpaid players and a NHL that by the time it gets started again the players average salary will fall well below the 1 million mark as the league loses fans support value and interest. There best deal should have been made weeks ago. Now the offer goes down and their value decreases with each and every passing day.
Very well said!

jpsharkfan is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:50 PM
  #11
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
From the Canadiens board, a very well informed viewpoint
"The players have shown good faith in wanting to negociate. They've made six offers that have all been rejected and the league hasn't offered a single counter offer. They're not negociating."

Wasnt it the league that made 6 offers that were all rejected?

"The players have put offers on the table that address the problems."

The players have put an offer on the table that they think will address the problem. The owners disagree.

"It's obvious who's being reasonable here..."

If it was obvious, all this discussion wouldnt be taking place. Its obvious he has a bias opinion.

I dont think its a very informed viewpoint, although its well written. Theres way more PA-sided posts on here that seem more informed, even if I dont agree with most of them.

Cawz is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:56 PM
  #12
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 17,891
vCash: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
The players have put offers on the table that address the problems.
Yeah, this is where it loses me. How did that joke address the problems?

Oh yeah. A 5% pay cut. What a deal.

Seachd is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 07:58 PM
  #13
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,076
vCash: 500
And since we are stealing from other boards here, I found this one interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs
"I just can't see it happening (replacement players)," said Barnaby, a former player rep for the Pittsburgh Penguins and New York Rangers. "Hockey doesn't have the highest ratings as it is, so how could they expect people to watch second- and third-tier players? Canadians definitely wouldn't pay money to see that, not unless they sell tickets for $3 apiece."

What I think is interesting, is that there have been recent comments from all walks of NHL experienced players about the poor NHL TV Ratings. The underlying theme here is that acknowledging this is directly related to revenues/salaries.

The player salaries increased during the expansion / network deal era. As we all know, that money is no longer available, but the salaries have remained in the same bracket (if not higher). Players are softly shooting themselves in the foot by acknowledging the poor ratings and reflective pricing.
No wonder they dont want to tie sals to revs.

Cawz is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:00 PM
  #14
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Yeah, this is where it loses me. How did that joke address the problems?

Oh yeah. A 5% pay cut. What a deal.
More than a 5% pay cut was offered. they offered a revenue sharing system a luxury tax and owners being able to call a player to arbitration as part of their system.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:01 PM
  #15
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
From the Canadiens board, a very well informed viewpoint
Actually no. The post starts with a bold declaration -- "There's no doubt that a combination of revenue sharing and a luxury tax would solve the leagues problems" -- and then completely fails to provide one fact to support it. What evidence, I ask, exists to indicate "there's no doubt" a combination of revenue sharing and luxury tax would solve the league's problems? Unfortunately, this "very well informed viewpoint" can't provide any.
Perhaps that's because the evidence is quite to the contrary. Major League Baseball has a combination of revenue sharing and a luxury tax for several years. Has it helped restore fiscal sanity and competitive balance to the league? Absolutely not. This year, six of the eight playoff teams were in the top nine in payroll. The two best teams in the league also had the two highest payrolls. The Yankees alone spent more than the five lowest teams combined. This is what a luxury tax did for baseball. Hooray.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:03 PM
  #16
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
And since we are stealing from other boards here, I found this one interesting.

No wonder they dont want to tie sals to revs.
How can the players possibly trust the owners when it comes to reporting revenue.

1) Forbes Magazine claims that the Levitt report is flawed and that total revenues from Arenas are not being accounted for.

2) Over the years the owners have had among them a) Bruce McNall (fraud artist) b) John Rigas (fraud artist) and worked closely with c) Alan Eagleson (as Union head screwed the players over many times and took kickbacks from the owners). The level of trust is just not there for them to tie anything to revenues at this time.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:08 PM
  #17
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Actually no. The post starts with a bold declaration -- "There's no doubt that a combination of revenue sharing and a luxury tax would solve the leagues problems" -- and then completely fails to provide one fact to support it. What evidence, I ask, exists to indicate "there's no doubt" a combination of revenue sharing and luxury tax would solve the league's problems? Unfortunately, this "very well informed viewpoint" can't provide any.
Perhaps that's because the evidence is quite to the contrary. Major League Baseball has a combination of revenue sharing and a luxury tax for several years. Has it helped restore fiscal sanity and competitive balance to the league? Absolutely not. This year, six of the eight playoff teams were in the top nine in payroll. The two best teams in the league also had the two highest payrolls. The Yankees alone spent more than the five lowest teams combined. This is what a luxury tax did for baseball. Hooray.
However high spending in Hockey already does not guarantee a winner and that is a fact. The last 8 conference finalists are all different teams. 6 of them (San Jose, Calgary, Tampa, Minnesota, Anaheim, Ottawa) can be considered small market teams. Two of the last three cup finalists (Tampa, Calgary and Anaheim) are small market. Furthermore the Rangers have outspent people for years yet have missed the playoffs for 7 straight seasons. The argument that a cap would equalize every teams chances of going far in the playoffs is false, as this is not something that the league should be worried about. Over the last little while the league has shown more parity than at any time in its history. You no longer see teams winning 4 cups in a row (Mtl, Islanders,) or 4 in 5 years and 5 in 7 (Oilers). In fact its been 6 years since a team even won two in a row and twenty years since any team has won three cups in a row.

As far as baseball not working, well as far as George Steinbrenner and the Yankees go then yes their system is not working, but fact is the Yankees are still rolling in dough even after their salaries and luxury tax payments are made. However what we have seen in baseball is a slowing of the escalation in salaries. Guys who are free agents today like Carlos Delgado are no longer going to get the deals they got 5 years ago (he'll be lucky to get 70% of the 17 million he made this year in his new deal). Also as was seen in the NBA and NFL with caps the lower salaried guys are taking bigger hits then the elite players.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 11-02-2004 at 08:14 PM.
Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:13 PM
  #18
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
How can the players possibly trust the owners when it comes to reporting revenue.

1) Forbes Magazine claims that the Levitt report is flawed and that total revenues from Arenas are not being accounted for.

2) Over the years the owners have had among them a) Bruce McNall (fraud artist) b) John Rigas (fraud artist) and worked closely with c) Alan Eagleson (as Union head screwed the players over many times and took kickbacks from the owners). The level of trust is just not there for them to tie anything to revenues at this time.
Where did you hear #1? Forbes does their own franchise worth report, but they dont have access to the books. It was asked here how they get their numbers and I've yet to hear an answer.

And for #2, I watched Gretzky get sold to pay off personal debts by Pocklington, so ya I understand. So from the PAs point of view, they are involved in a work stoppage because they dont trust their boss.

Cawz is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:17 PM
  #19
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
However high spending in Hockey already does not guarantee a winner and that is a fact. The last 8 conference finalists are all different teams. 6 of them (San Jose, Calgary, Tampa, Minnesota, Anaheim, Ottawa) can be considered small market teams. Two of the last three cup finalists (Tampa, Calgary and Anaheim) are small market. Furthermore the Rangers have outspent people for years yet have missed the playoffs for 7 straight seasons. The argument that a cap would equalize every teams chances of going far in the playoffs is false, as this is not something that the league should be worried about. Over the last little while the league has shown more parity than at any time in its history. You no longer see teams winning 4 cups in a row (Mtl, Islanders,) or 4 in 5 years and 5 in 7 (Oilers). In fact its been 6 years since a team even won two in a row and twenty years since any team has won three cups in a row.
Man, that old tired hole-filled argument is sooooo 2 months ago. Go read some old threads to get a rebuttal.

Cawz is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:18 PM
  #20
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
How can the players possibly trust the owners when it comes to reporting revenue.

1) Forbes Magazine claims that the Levitt report is flawed and that total revenues from Arenas are not being accounted for.

2) Over the years the owners have had among them a) Bruce McNall (fraud artist) b) John Rigas (fraud artist) and worked closely with c) Alan Eagleson (as Union head screwed the players over many times and took kickbacks from the owners). The level of trust is just not there for them to tie anything to revenues at this time.
It doesn't matter whether the players trust the owners or not, because they don't have choice. However, your assertion they shouldn't because of what a former owner did 10-20 years ago is patently ridiculous. Perhaps the owners don't trust the union because of Mike Danton, Kevin Stevens and Jon Kordic.
The bottom line is it's the owner's league. It's their puck and they've decided to go home with it. And they can afford to. Remember, not one owner relies on the NHL to clothe and feed their children. They'll all do very well without the NHL.
No so for players. Few of them have more than a high school education and the only thing keeping them from asking if I would like fries with my meal is the NHL. I suspect if they miss a few more paychecks - much less a full season of them - the so-called union solidarity will crumble fast.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:19 PM
  #21
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Where did you hear #1? Forbes does their own franchise worth report, but they dont have access to the books. It was asked here how they get their numbers and I've yet to hear an answer.

And for #2, I watched Gretzky get sold to pay off personal debts by Pocklington, so ya I understand. So from the PAs point of view, they are involved in a work stoppage because they dont trust their boss.
1) Forbes has access to numbers such as the reported paid attendances and tickets sold from each game as well as teams average per person expenditures in concessions. They also have access to the books of teams that are part of a publicly traded entity (ie when Molson's used to own the Canadiens, among others) or part of things like the Ontario Teachers Pension fund (ie the Maple Leafs). They can use any figures they need to make estimates for other teams. Now when these estimates are off by a small margin then i think you can take the view that Forbes overestimated the revenue but when they report that reported league revenues are off by more than 20% of their estimate there is some concern as to who is telling the truth, especially given the owners track record as seen in point #2.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:21 PM
  #22
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Man, that old tired hole-filled argument is sooooo 2 months ago. Go read some old threads to get a rebuttal.
I have used only facts in that argument, look them up if you want, but i tell you there is not one point i stated that is not fact.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:23 PM
  #23
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
It doesn't matter whether the players trust the owners or not, because they don't have choice. However, your assertion they shouldn't because of what a former owner did 10-20 years ago is patently ridiculous. Perhaps the owners don't trust the union because of Mike Danton, Kevin Stevens and Jon Kordic.
The bottom line is it's the owner's league. It's their puck and they've decided to go home with it. And they can afford to. Remember, not one owner relies on the NHL to clothe and feed their children. They'll all do very well without the NHL.
No so for players. Few of them have more than a high school education and the only thing keeping them from asking if I would like fries with my meal is the NHL. I suspect if they miss a few more paychecks - much less a full season of them - the so-called union solidarity will crumble fast.
1) John Rigas was last year, not 10-20 years ago.
2) guys like Bill Wirtz in Chicago, among others were around for the Eagleson years.

So yeah their track record does play a part in the players perception of the league.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:29 PM
  #24
Boondock Saint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
More than a 5% pay cut was offered. they offered a revenue sharing system a luxury tax and owners being able to call a player to arbitration as part of their system.
First of all, the players offered a pathetic 5% rollback on salaries.

How does this of all things help curb escalating salaries??? They'll keep spiralling out of control and if the owners accepted the players' proposal, salaries would increase by much more than 5% by the beginning of next season. Terrible short-term solution put on the table to make media headlines. They would have had to have known that the owners would laugh at this measly solution and fire it right back at them.

Their revenue sharing system and luxury tax were even softer than the joke that MLB put together. How has the MLB's use of revenue sharing and a luxury tax even remotely helped that league?? There are teams with little chance to be competitive and salaries are more ridiculous than ever.

And now owners will be able to call players to arbitration?? :lol I'm sure the players would hate to be subjected to a form of arbitration that could be described as nothing less than inflationary. The raises given to players by arbitrators have been very player-friendly. Unless they plan to overhaul the way they perform arbitration, this is another useless contribution to CBA negotiations by the NHLPA.

Boondock Saint is offline  
Old
11-02-2004, 08:33 PM
  #25
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint
First of all, the players offered a pathetic 5% rollback on salaries.

How does this of all things help curb escalating salaries??? They'll keep spiralling out of control and if the owners accepted the players' proposal, salaries would increase by much more than 5% by the beginning of next season. Terrible short-term solution put on the table to make media headlines. They would have had to have known that the owners would laugh at this measly solution and fire it right back at them.

Their revenue sharing system and luxury tax were even softer than the joke that MLB put together. How has the MLB's use of revenue sharing and a luxury tax even remotely helped that league?? There are teams with little chance to be competitive and salaries are more ridiculous than ever.

And now owners will be able to call players to arbitration?? :lol I'm sure the players would hate to be subjected to a form of arbitration that could be described as nothing less than inflationary. The raises given to players by arbitrators have been very player-friendly. Unless they plan to overhaul the way they perform arbitration, this is another useless contribution to CBA negotiations by the NHLPA.
1) it was an opening offer, that 5% was not written in stone, however no counter proposal was made by the owners
2) luxury tax implemented properly would curb salaries
3) one of the reasons that arbitration is inflationary is the fact that players can go after career seasons and choose not to go after sub-par seasons, therefore this part of the proposal should curb the inflationary tendencies of arbitration.

Beakermania* 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 03:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.