HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHLPA answers to Beliveau's comments

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2004, 11:05 PM
  #1
Evgeny Oliker
Registered User
 
Evgeny Oliker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,303
vCash: 500
NHLPA answers to Beliveau's comments

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...42&hubName=nhl

interesting article. yes, i agree that both the player and the team sign the contract. however, thats like arguing what came first, the egg or the chicken. its a stupid argument to make when you have a CBA to negotiate. instead of pointing FINGERS how about actually trying to sit down and talk more often?
i also found it amusing to see DAMPHOUSSE of all people trying to defend the NHLPA. DAMPHOUSSE is the one who would not sign with the AVS last season because he only wanted to sign a long-term deal. if it was the rangers, they would have gave Damphousse some 4 year deal at 4 mill a year. and he wants to talk about how its the owner's fault that they get into bad deals? its everyone's fault of course but the main problem is that the current CBA does not work and both sides need to stop *****ing and start offering more conscesions.

Evgeny Oliker is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 11:18 PM
  #2
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2forsbergaura1
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...42&hubName=nhl

interesting article. yes, i agree that both the player and the team sign the contract. however, thats like arguing what came first, the egg or the chicken. its a stupid argument to make when you have a CBA to negotiate. instead of pointing FINGERS how about actually trying to sit down and talk more often?
i also found it amusing to see DAMPHOUSSE of all people trying to defend the NHLPA. DAMPHOUSSE is the one who would not sign with the AVS last season because he only wanted to sign a long-term deal. if it was the rangers, they would have gave Damphousse some 4 year deal at 4 mill a year. and he wants to talk about how its the owner's fault that they get into bad deals? its everyone's fault of course but the main problem is that the current CBA does not work and both sides need to stop *****ing and start offering more conscesions.
I'll copy a quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA."

So what changed????

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 02:24 AM
  #3
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,677
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I'll copy a quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA."

So what changed????
Size of payroll for one. The Forbes article states "as salaries have gone up 1.4 times as fast as revenues have since 1999.". What might have been affordable in 1998 might not be affordable now.


Last edited by me2: 11-12-2004 at 05:29 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 05:10 AM
  #4
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,919
vCash: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I'll copy a quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA."

So what changed????
They neglected to account for human nature and that for every action, there's a reaction. Suppose they removed all the speed limit signs and you could drive as fast as your car could go. Would you continue to drive at a prudent speed? If you did, wouldn't people with with faster cars be whizzing by you making your "prudent" speed dangerous? I would drive faster to stay with the traffic flow. Unfortunately I'd either blow the engine on my economical car, or have to invest money in a fast car I really can't afford.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 07:17 PM
  #5
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Heh. Touché. But if you want to drive on the autobahn, better get an 8 cylinder or stay on the minor roads.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 08:21 AM
  #6
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 107,620
vCash: 6115
Did anyone expect the NHLPA to say "Yeah, Beliveau's right." I don't think so.

GKJ 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 02:40 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.