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, and NHL revenues.

My two cents on the lockout

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2004, 10:57 PM
  #1
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
My two cents on the lockout

Which would you average fans rather have?

1. Have to wait several years for the owners to bust the Players Union--a long and messy process--and create a new league from scratch

2. Have the owners show some responsibility and restraint in their spending practices so we don't have to have a lockout and the union won't have to be busted



I don't know about you guys, but I vote for the latter. Just look at our team [the Capitals] . Look at the transformation we have been undergoing for the last year or so. We dumped the high-payroll players who play for money alone and are cancers in the lockerroom, and we stocked up on young talent, including Alexander Ovechkin.



As a result we should have a low-payroll team for several years until our players mature and have success and want money for it. When that happens, we can say: "What do you care about more? The money or the team? If you care more about the team, then accept a pay increase but not a huge one, and have success with our franchise. If you care more about the money, you are useless to our team and we don't want you anyway. Go to the Rangers, because they and similar teams stocked full of useless individuals like you are the only ones who will sign you."



The players then have a choice to make. If they choose to stay with the team earning a sensible amount of money, then great--we get to continue with our close-knit team. If they choose the money, then it proves that they do not have the kind of character we must demand from our players. We must demand a team-first attitude and the highest character and work ethic. We don't want a bunch of lazy druggies on our team--that is not the way to success.



Players who make too much money--case in point Jaromir Jagr--feel somehow that they are above work--since they have basically reached the peak of the amount of money they will earn, and since that money is garaunteed no matter how much success or lack of it they have, it reduces or eliminates the incentive to work. As a result, they produce less and in many cases are actually a detriment to the team because they take bench space and ice time from players who ARE willing to work. They create tension in the lockerroom because other lower-paid, harder-working players are disgusted at the injustice of the elite player/s getting paid more for producing less. Therefore it is not in the interests of the team to overpay players, aside from the fact that it is not fiscally responsible.



In contrast, if you have a lower-payroll team filled with young, high-character, hard-working players who play as a team, it is best for the success of the team both statistically and financially, as well as pleasing to the fans who will know that every night, win or lose, their team will give it their best shot and they will be able to watch some great hockey.



Then--since you gained money by lowering your payroll--you can afford to lower your ticket prices enough to allow ordinary people to take their families to games, and the fans will line up in droves. Remember in school we learned that lower prices increase demand? It seems that the owners and GM's have lost sight of this fact. If teams would just lower salaries and then lower ticket prices, they would allow normal people to come see their games. Fans have to be able to take their families or their friends--or both --to watch a great young team play some great hockey without busting their own budgets. They shouldn't have to worry about their team lazing off like I had to when I was an Avalanche fan. They shouldn't have to scream at the television or the radio like I did, ordering my team of fat cats to get off their rear ends and play some hockey. They shouldn't have to be a rich businessman to be able to go see their team play. They can be ordinary people making ordinary salaries and still see their favorite team play hockey the way the game was meant to be played.



I see no reason why an NHL team cannot succeed following these guidelines. If they would exercise some business sense, they would realize that a salary cap, while useful in curbing the spending of irresponsible teams, is unecissary because each team can impose their own salary cap by being disciplined in their own spending. They shouldn't need a regulation to order them to spend only a certain amount--they should be able to do that themselves. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they blame the players, and thus we normal fans are sitting here talking about the lockout instead of our team's games in the 2004-2005 NHL season!!! Now don't get me wrong--I don't mean to say that the players are not at fault. Many of them are because of their low character and low work ethic, but the owners and GM's are responsible because they are the leaders. They are in charge of the team--who stays and who goes, who plays and who warms the bench. It is up the GM's to exercise discipline in spending and hold a tough line on players who ask for too much money. That's my opinion anyway. I don't think a salary cap is necessary if the owners and GM's use common sense.


Last edited by Foppa_Rules: 11-20-2004 at 11:03 PM.
Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 02:12 AM
  #2
quat
vapid but stately
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Which would you rather do, work for a living or win the lottery? Hmm...

quat is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 07:41 AM
  #3
dkrause1971
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
Which would you average fans rather have?

1. Have to wait several years for the owners to bust the Players Union--a long and messy process--and create a new league from scratch

2. Have the owners show some responsibility and restraint in their spending practices so we don't have to have a lockout and the union won't have to be busted



I don't know about you guys, but I vote for the latter. Just look at our team [the Capitals] . Look at the transformation we have been undergoing for the last year or so. We dumped the high-payroll players who play for money alone and are cancers in the lockerroom, and we stocked up on young talent, including Alexander Ovechkin.



As a result we should have a low-payroll team for several years until our players mature and have success and want money for it. When that happens, we can say: "What do you care about more? The money or the team? If you care more about the team, then accept a pay increase but not a huge one, and have success with our franchise. If you care more about the money, you are useless to our team and we don't want you anyway. Go to the Rangers, because they and similar teams stocked full of useless individuals like you are the only ones who will sign you."



The players then have a choice to make. If they choose to stay with the team earning a sensible amount of money, then great--we get to continue with our close-knit team. If they choose the money, then it proves that they do not have the kind of character we must demand from our players. We must demand a team-first attitude and the highest character and work ethic. We don't want a bunch of lazy druggies on our team--that is not the way to success.



Players who make too much money--case in point Jaromir Jagr--feel somehow that they are above work--since they have basically reached the peak of the amount of money they will earn, and since that money is garaunteed no matter how much success or lack of it they have, it reduces or eliminates the incentive to work. As a result, they produce less and in many cases are actually a detriment to the team because they take bench space and ice time from players who ARE willing to work. They create tension in the lockerroom because other lower-paid, harder-working players are disgusted at the injustice of the elite player/s getting paid more for producing less. Therefore it is not in the interests of the team to overpay players, aside from the fact that it is not fiscally responsible.



In contrast, if you have a lower-payroll team filled with young, high-character, hard-working players who play as a team, it is best for the success of the team both statistically and financially, as well as pleasing to the fans who will know that every night, win or lose, their team will give it their best shot and they will be able to watch some great hockey.



Then--since you gained money by lowering your payroll--you can afford to lower your ticket prices enough to allow ordinary people to take their families to games, and the fans will line up in droves. Remember in school we learned that lower prices increase demand? It seems that the owners and GM's have lost sight of this fact. If teams would just lower salaries and then lower ticket prices, they would allow normal people to come see their games. Fans have to be able to take their families or their friends--or both --to watch a great young team play some great hockey without busting their own budgets. They shouldn't have to worry about their team lazing off like I had to when I was an Avalanche fan. They shouldn't have to scream at the television or the radio like I did, ordering my team of fat cats to get off their rear ends and play some hockey. They shouldn't have to be a rich businessman to be able to go see their team play. They can be ordinary people making ordinary salaries and still see their favorite team play hockey the way the game was meant to be played.



I see no reason why an NHL team cannot succeed following these guidelines. If they would exercise some business sense, they would realize that a salary cap, while useful in curbing the spending of irresponsible teams, is unecissary because each team can impose their own salary cap by being disciplined in their own spending. They shouldn't need a regulation to order them to spend only a certain amount--they should be able to do that themselves. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they blame the players, and thus we normal fans are sitting here talking about the lockout instead of our team's games in the 2004-2005 NHL season!!! Now don't get me wrong--I don't mean to say that the players are not at fault. Many of them are because of their low character and low work ethic, but the owners and GM's are responsible because they are the leaders. They are in charge of the team--who stays and who goes, who plays and who warms the bench. It is up the GM's to exercise discipline in spending and hold a tough line on players who ask for too much money. That's my opinion anyway. I don't think a salary cap is necessary if the owners and GM's use common sense.
Even if GM's showed fiscal responsibility you would start to hear the evil Collusion word mentioned. MLBPA just changed their salary recommendation process because the union was rumbling about filing charges again. Yes, teams should spend not more then they have but if the teams cut new contracts by 10-30% i but the union sues over collusion. I really think a strict luxary tax is the way to go.

Don

dkrause1971 is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 08:34 AM
  #4
Isles72
Registered User
 
Isles72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,850
vCash: 500
your plan sounds good Foppa but there are always superstars that emerge from various teams who will want their due .

if fans learn that their team cannot keep their emerging talents , then they have to be willing to accept that their team is continually in rebuild mode .Some teams , like the Oilers are a perfect example of the balancing act that is required to keep their team afloat via good value trades for their emerging talents which they cannot afford to keep .

I'd like to believe that die hard fans of any specific team would support your idea of ''if they get too greedy then we dont want em here anyways '' type of attitude , but I have a hard time believing it would work league wide .

What kinda bothers me most out of all of this is ...Are we going to war for just 6 or so teams who have been poorly managed ? Or , teams that are in financial trouble due to poor lease agreements , older building lacking revenue streams from lux boxes ? etc....I dont think its right for teams that have been managed properly to be stuck in a lockout because their neighbours have problem .

Isles72 is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 12:02 PM
  #5
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles72
your plan sounds good Foppa but there are always superstars that emerge from various teams who will want their due .

if fans learn that their team cannot keep their emerging talents , then they have to be willing to accept that their team is continually in rebuild mode .Some teams , like the Oilers are a perfect example of the balancing act that is required to keep their team afloat via good value trades for their emerging talents which they cannot afford to keep .

I'd like to believe that die hard fans of any specific team would support your idea of ''if they get too greedy then we dont want em here anyways '' type of attitude , but I have a hard time believing it would work league wide .

What kinda bothers me most out of all of this is ...Are we going to war for just 6 or so teams who have been poorly managed ? Or , teams that are in financial trouble due to poor lease agreements , older building lacking revenue streams from lux boxes ? etc....I dont think its right for teams that have been managed properly to be stuck in a lockout because their neighbours have problem .

Exactly. Why should responsible teams have to suffer for the excesses of the irresponsible teams? It doesn't make sense.


And as to your point about the superstars wanting their due, they can have pay increases. I'm not saying they shouldn't. If the team is successful, they will bring in more revenues and will have more money to spend on player salaries. That also will create the incentive to work. Players should get what they deserve for their efforts, but not at the cost of the team. Players shouldn't demand so much money for themselves that it drives the team into bankruptcy.

Also, not all teams will follow these guidelines. Probably there will always be teams like the Rangers, the Avalanche and the Red Wings who have huge payroll teams stocked full of players who will have left their teams for the money. There will always be a place for them to go. If no one will take them--very unlikely unless ALL the teams become responsible--they will have to play in Europe, lower their salary demands, or retire.

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 12:20 PM
  #6
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Exactly. Why should responsible teams have to suffer for the excesses of the irresponsible teams? It doesn't make sense.
The problem is that the big market rich teams are being responsible based on their revenue, but the disparity between the markets makes this line of reasoning fools gold.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 05:05 PM
  #7
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
So you want the rich teams to be able to pay only as much as the poor teams can? How is that fair? Picture the Red Wings being only able pay only as much for their players as the Penguins can. No worky. It's only fair that owners who have more money should be ble to use it. The League shouldn't be looking to create equality in spending when there is not equality in revenue...next we'll be having redistribution of players and income for the sake of equality.


If you want to put the teams on welfare, it will reduce the accountablility of the managment side.


Why can't teams manage their players responsibly and spend their money responsibly? Why do they need a regulation to order them to spend a certain amount? Are they not able to stop themselves from overspending?


Why can't a team stock up on hard-working, high-character youngsters and pay them a sensible amount of money?

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 05:42 PM
  #8
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
Why can't teams manage their players responsibly and spend their money responsibly? Why do they need a regulation to order them to spend a certain amount? Are they not able to stop themselves from overspending?
The problem is not overspending, it's inflation. Giving a hefty contract to a player serves as basis for every other player in the league. Thus, all teams become responsible for one irresponsible contract. Leveling the field lowers inflation and helps parity.

Now why is there so much inflation ? Good ol' offer and demand. League expended too quickly and there is too much demand for quality players hence salary inflation. Owners don't really have a choice, that's how competitive markets work. But every economist in the world knows inflation is the bane of any economic system. Inflation can make a market collapse. Anybody lost money in the dot com bubble ? If you did, you should understand this. It's no wonder governments try and control inflation so much. And I find it smart that the owners are finally trying to create a system that controls inflation.

Orange is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 05:53 PM
  #9
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange
The problem is not overspending, it's inflation. Giving a hefty contract to a player serves as basis for every other player in the league. Thus, all teams become responsible for one irresponsible contract.

I guess that depends on the character of your players. Are they willing to leave the team and the fans for money? Are they going to demand more money than the team can pay? Are they going to steal money from the fans? If the answers to any or all of these questions are "yes", then that is a player you want to get rid of anyway. Only a fat cat would demand more money than the team can pay.


Let's use the Tampa Bay Lighting as an example. They won the Cup last year, right? Did they have the highest payroll? No. Now let's say the lockout ends tomorrow. Let's say Lecavlier's contract is up--time to negotiate. The Lighting GM tells him "We can pay you (insert amount) and no more. You can stick with us and have success, or you can leave to another team if you want more money." Then Vinny has two choices, doesn't he? He can stay with the Cup-winning team, or he can go to a team like the Rangers or the Red Wings and make his 10 million dollars.

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 06:19 PM
  #10
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
I guess that depends on the character of your players. Are they willing to leave the team and the fans for money? Are they going to demand more money than the team can pay? Are they going to steal money from the fans? If the answers to any or all of these questions are "yes", then that is a player you want to get rid of anyway. Only a fat cat would demand more money than the team can pay.


Let's use the Tampa Bay Lighting as an example. They won the Cup last year, right? Did they have the highest payroll? No. Now let's say the lockout ends tomorrow. Let's say Lecavlier's contract is up--time to negotiate. The Lighting GM tells him "We can pay you (insert amount) and no more. You can stick with us and have success, or you can leave to another team if you want more money." Then Vinny has two choices, doesn't he? He can stay with the Cup-winning team, or he can go to a team like the Rangers or the Red Wings and make his 10 million dollars.

And when Lecavlier leaves for $1M more than your team can afford to offer, what effect does that have on your team and fans? You just let your best player walk for just $1M! When the Sabres tried to hold thier ground on salaries, the players were talking about the owners not wanting to pay the price to be a winner (this was just after their last appearance in the finals...) and the fans were saying the same things too. Now you have just demoralized your players and fans. What effect is that going to have on their performance and the fans attendance?

And if you don't think the players will not leave or demand more money for the good of the team, go back and read the thread on the NHLPA SCORE system. The NHLPA is making decisions about who should hold out and who should go to arbitration. That will have a big effect on negotiations too.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 06:25 PM
  #11
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
I guess that depends on the character of your players. Are they willing to leave the team and the fans for money? Are they going to demand more money than the team can pay? Are they going to steal money from the fans? If the answers to any or all of these questions are "yes", then that is a player you want to get rid of anyway. Only a fat cat would demand more money than the team can pay.
I agree with you. It's really hard for a player to negotiate a contract. They are too emotionally involved with a team to take part in the negotiations. They can't do much against the "Are they willing to leave the team and the fans for money?" argument. That's why they have agents that don't care about such things to represent them.

Players don't negotiate their contracts, they do very little part in it. It's their agents that does the work and rightly so. Players would be greatly misrepresented if they negotiated themselves. As we know, agents are much more interested by the numbers on the contract than the color of the jersey a player wears.

Besides, when a GM says : "Do you really want to play elsewhere ?", it's a bluff. More likely than not, they don't have a choice but to sign them. To take your example, not signing Lecavalier would greatly impact the team, but he'll want a contract that reflects the inflated market. It's not as clear cut as you make it to be.

Orange is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 06:51 PM
  #12
ShippinItDaily
Registered User
 
ShippinItDaily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ShippinItDaily
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
I guess that depends on the character of your players. Are they willing to leave the team and the fans for money? Are they going to demand more money than the team can pay? Are they going to steal money from the fans? If the answers to any or all of these questions are "yes", then that is a player you want to get rid of anyway. Only a fat cat would demand more money than the team can pay.


Let's use the Tampa Bay Lighting as an example. They won the Cup last year, right? Did they have the highest payroll? No. Now let's say the lockout ends tomorrow. Let's say Lecavlier's contract is up--time to negotiate. The Lighting GM tells him "We can pay you (insert amount) and no more. You can stick with us and have success, or you can leave to another team if you want more money." Then Vinny has two choices, doesn't he? He can stay with the Cup-winning team, or he can go to a team like the Rangers or the Red Wings and make his 10 million dollars.



I like the philosophy you have on the game but you're major oversight is the fact that the players or agents or NHLPA never accept a team saying "this is all we can pay you". They will look for every penny the player can get and that is what they call market value.

To make improvements on the way the business works they must change arbitration , compensation for free agents and contract.

If they do that , as well as drastically improve revenue sharing the league should be fine.

But i have no sympathy for owners who hide their revenues and attack their players. They should be in this business to compete within a league not to increase their fortune. I am by no means in favor of a system that would allow teams to be responsible by default.

ShippinItDaily is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 07:04 PM
  #13
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Players need to stop living in this little fantasy land they're in, where nothing short of a couple hundred grand per year can feed their families...

They need to realise they are getting paid more than most ever dream of, to play a game most would play for free...

These people are more lucky than they could ever imagine and what they're doing is sick.

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 07:18 PM
  #14
ShippinItDaily
Registered User
 
ShippinItDaily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ShippinItDaily
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMoses
Players need to stop living in this little fantasy land they're in, where nothing short of a couple hundred grand per year can feed their families...

They need to realise they are getting paid more than most ever dream of, to play a game most would play for free...

These people are more lucky than they could ever imagine and what they're doing is sick.

Ok so they make a lot of money and alot of thier comments are totally ridiculous. But would you really rather see all that money go into the owners hands. I wouldnt, not for a second.

ShippinItDaily is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 09:05 PM
  #15
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
And when Lecavlier leaves for $1M more than your team can afford to offer, what effect does that have on your team and fans? You just let your best player walk for just $1M! When the Sabres tried to hold thier ground on salaries, the players were talking about the owners not wanting to pay the price to be a winner (this was just after their last appearance in the finals...) and the fans were saying the same things too. Now you have just demoralized your players and fans. What effect is that going to have on their performance and the fans attendance?

And if you don't think the players will not leave or demand more money for the good of the team, go back and read the thread on the NHLPA SCORE system. The NHLPA is making decisions about who should hold out and who should go to arbitration. That will have a big effect on negotiations too.


Then it will be all over the Tampa papers the next morning: "Lecavlier jumps ship for $1 Million extra dollars", and how will he ever explain why he left his team just so he could make an extra $1 Million. His name will be a dirty word in Tampa, because he chose money first instead of the team and the fans. He left the Stanley Cup-winning team just so he could make some extra cash. The Lightning offered them what they could afford without losing money, but it wasn't good enough for him. He wanted more. He tried to steal money from the fans. He left because of greed. How many fans will sympathize with him, I wonder.



The players should not be slaves of the Union. They should have their own minds, not be robots programmed by the Union. If they want to do something, to sign for this team or to leave that other team, the Union shouldn't be able to force them to do otherwise. They should have their own brains. Case in point the Gaborik holdout. He believed his agent, trusted him and obeyed him. Gaborik really thought he could get the money quick...but it didn't happen. The Wild held the line, and soon Marian Gaborik had had enough. He wanted to play hockey more than he wanted the money. He cared more about playing hockey than getting a few extra dollars. He fired his agents and he signed with the Wild. He did the wrong thing by holding out, but because the Wild held the line, he learned his lesson and he signed. I see no reason why any other sane player would behave any differently when faced with a choice between the money and the hockey. It all comes down to what they care about more--money or hockey? It's an open question for many NHL players, but not for all of them.

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 09:07 PM
  #16
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMoses
Players need to stop living in this little fantasy land they're in, where nothing short of a couple hundred grand per year can feed their families...

They need to realise they are getting paid more than most ever dream of, to play a game most would play for free...

These people are more lucky than they could ever imagine and what they're doing is sick.

I agree entirely. Any player who would sacrifice playing hockey for a few extra dollars does not have character or heart.

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 09:13 PM
  #17
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Orange]

Players don't negotiate their contracts, they do very little part in it. It's their agents that does the work and rightly so. Players would be greatly misrepresented if they negotiated themselves. As we know, agents are much more interested by the numbers on the contract than the color of the jersey a player wears.

Besides, when a GM says : "Do you really want to play elsewhere ?", it's a bluff. QUOTE]

That is why it is crucial that players choose agents that will represent THEM, not themselves. Many, if not most, times, the agent is acting more in his own interests than in the interests of the player he claims to represent. The more money the player makes, the larger commission the agent makes. The players should not be slaves of the agents.


That is why it must not be a bluff. The owners have to say what they mean and mean what they say. They have to hold the line, then the players will decide where their loyalties lie--to hockey or to money.

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 09:22 PM
  #18
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangler19
Ok so they make a lot of money and alot of thier comments are totally ridiculous. But would you really rather see all that money go into the owners hands. I wouldnt, not for a second.
I agree. It should go into OUR hands in the form of lower ticket prices so ordinary people can actually afford to see their favorite teams play. The present ticket prices are outrageous, and it is because the salaries are so high and the only way to compensate for the loss is to raise ticket prices. That isn't right. It isn't right that these NHL players get all these mansions and fancy cars while we can't even afford to go see them play because ticket prices have to be so high--because of the players. Then they take away our season because they will not accept any kind of limit on the amount of money they make. They think they are kings who can get anything they want. They don't care about the game or the fans--only money so they can buy an extra mansion and an extra ferrari so they can get drunk and crash it and destroy their lives. We don't want these kinds of players on our teams. At least I don't. I'd kick them off in a heartbeat.


Kick them off and replace them with REAL hockey players. Players who consider it a PRIVELEDGE to play hockey, not a chore to be done with the least possible enthusiasm. Players who would play for $10,000 a year if they had to, not demand $10 million, take it or leave it. Replace the fat cats with players who have character and heart. Players who work their rear ends off every night, win or lose. Players who keep their lives clean. Players who are hungry to win. Players who play as a TEAM. Those are the kind of guys we love to cheer for. They are the heart and soul of hockey.


Last edited by Foppa_Rules: 11-21-2004 at 09:27 PM.
Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 09:51 PM
  #19
quat
vapid but stately
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
So you want the rich teams to be able to pay only as much as the poor teams can? How is that fair? Picture the Red Wings being only able pay only as much for their players as the Penguins can. No worky. It's only fair that owners who have more money should be ble to use it. The League shouldn't be looking to create equality in spending when there is not equality in revenue...next we'll be having redistribution of players and income for the sake of equality.


If you want to put the teams on welfare, it will reduce the accountablility of the managment side.


Why can't teams manage their players responsibly and spend their money responsibly? Why do they need a regulation to order them to spend a certain amount? Are they not able to stop themselves from overspending?


Why can't a team stock up on hard-working, high-character youngsters and pay them a sensible amount of money?
It's the cornerstone of competition ... the even playing field. How isn't that fair? If the whole reason you play is to win, how will losing suddenly become acceptable for the fans? You are INVENTING senarios that have little probability of existing if salaries are tied to revenue. I won't say that none of these things won't happen, but their likelyhood is very, very slim. How you can rationalize several teams having to ability to outspend their competition as being "fair" is rather bizzarre... and yet here you are.

quat is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 09:59 PM
  #20
ShippinItDaily
Registered User
 
ShippinItDaily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ShippinItDaily
Foppa_Rules I think you are starting to get carried away.

The players are making a lot of money but they deserve their share of the pie. I would like to see them get 60% of the revenues myself.

The owners will cry all sorts of things in order to try and get the public to believe them and get the system they want. The bottom line is, however, that they created this mess themselves and are just finally starting to pay for it. And although many of these owners were not around when all the problems started I will not show sympathy to the owners as a group. Maybe when they finally admit that they are responsible for the mess, i will start to criticize the players a bit more , but until then i will not let the owners get away with bullying the players into some kind of idiot proof system. Let's just get rid of the idiots right!

Besides you cant tell me if you were the best player in the game that you wouldnt accept the hightest salary. You would be doing a disservice to all of your brotheren!

Players deserve to make their market share of the pie, right now i do believe it is too high but its not the players fault for this mess!!! As soon as the owner want to be reasonable and accountable for the state of the game this whole thing will be over with and we will all be able to enjoy this great game again.

ShippinItDaily is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 10:05 PM
  #21
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
It's the cornerstone of competition ... the even playing field. How isn't that fair? If the whole reason you play is to win, how will losing suddenly become acceptable for the fans? You are INVENTING senarios that have little probability of existing if salaries are tied to revenue. I won't say that none of these things won't happen, but their likelyhood is very, very slim. How you can rationalize several teams having to ability to outspend their competition as being "fair" is rather bizzarre... and yet here you are.


I am not saying that teams SHOULD outspend their competition--that is their choice--I am only saying that they must have the right. I think it's been proven, though, that high payrolls do not ensure success. It's a competition to see who can create the best team with a low enough salary that they can make ticket prices low and still make money. The team has to be successful.


If you want the Red Wings to be able to spend only the amount the Penguins are able to spend, you would have to be a biased Penguins fan.


That's like ordering Walmart to leave me alone if I want to start a store with lower quality products for higher prices. That's called being on welfare. You have to allow the laws of supply and demand to hold NHL teams accountable, not protect them from the big teams in this way. We already have the NHL Entry Draft system to help guard against monopolies to some degree. We don't want to create an even playing field just for the sake of it. Teams have to EARN a seat with the "big dogs". As it turns out, the "big dogs" are actually LESS successful than the younger, low-payroll teams, because the "big dogs" think they can win without working for it...because that's how they get their salaries. You tell me that Jaromir Jagr earned $10 million dollars last year.

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 10:08 PM
  #22
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangler19
Foppa_Rules I think you are starting to get carried away.

The players are making a lot of money but they deserve their share of the pie. I would like to see them get 60% of the revenues myself.

The owners will cry all sorts of things in order to try and get the public to believe them and get the system they want. The bottom line is, however, that they created this mess themselves and are just finally starting to pay for it. And although many of these owners were not around when all the problems started I will not show sympathy to the owners as a group. Maybe when they finally admit that they are responsible for the mess, i will start to criticize the players a bit more , but until then i will not let the owners get away with bullying the players into some kind of idiot proof system. Let's just get rid of the idiots right!

Besides you cant tell me if you were the best player in the game that you wouldnt accept the hightest salary. You would be doing a disservice to all of your brotheren!

Players deserve to make their market share of the pie, right now i do believe it is too high but its not the players fault for this mess!!! As soon as the owner want to be reasonable and accountable for the state of the game this whole thing will be over with and we will all be able to enjoy this great game again.
I can tell you that if I made 10,000,000 per season, I wouldn't spend it on 11 cars, 14 100,000$ watches, a 7,000$ juicer and diamond chains. Maybe it's just me, but these people really need a wake up call because while they waste, their fellow man suffers. Outside of their fantasy land, there are some very bad things that could easily be fixed if the rich gave more.

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
11-21-2004, 10:12 PM
  #23
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangler19
Foppa_Rules I think you are starting to get carried away.

The players are making a lot of money but they deserve their share of the pie. I would like to see them get 60% of the revenues myself.

The owners will cry all sorts of things in order to try and get the public to believe them and get the system they want. The bottom line is, however, that they created this mess themselves and are just finally starting to pay for it. And although many of these owners were not around when all the problems started I will not show sympathy to the owners as a group. Maybe when they finally admit that they are responsible for the mess, i will start to criticize the players a bit more , but until then i will not let the owners get away with bullying the players into some kind of idiot proof system. Let's just get rid of the idiots right!

Besides you cant tell me if you were the best player in the game that you wouldnt accept the hightest salary. You would be doing a disservice to all of your brotheren!

Players deserve to make their market share of the pie, right now i do believe it is too high but its not the players fault for this mess!!! As soon as the owner want to be reasonable and accountable for the state of the game this whole thing will be over with and we will all be able to enjoy this great game again.



You misunderstand me. I am not blaming only the players for this. In fact I blame to owners much more because they are the ones who are responsible for the payrolls. Any player will try to get as much money as possible--but the character of that player is determined by what they are willing to do to get that money.


I blame the fat cats for being selfish and all that, but I blame the owners for being STUPID enough to sign them and so blind that they cannot see these huge character flaws. I blame the owners for destroying their teams. I blame the owners for the high ticket prices. I blame the owners for the lockout. Of course many of the players deserve a share of the blame for their own personal selfishness and greed, but the owners are the ones who are ultimately responsible because they are the leaders and they are the ones in charge. They choose who goes and who stays. They choose what kind of player they draft. They choos what kind of player they trade away. They choose what kind of player they kick off the team. Do you get my point? The players are responsible for their own personal greed, but the owners are responsible for the failure of their teams because they are the leaders.

Foppa_Rules is offline  
Old
11-22-2004, 01:38 AM
  #24
quat
vapid but stately
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
I am not saying that teams SHOULD outspend their competition--that is their choice--I am only saying that they must have the right. I think it's been proven, though, that high payrolls do not ensure success. It's a competition to see who can create the best team with a low enough salary that they can make ticket prices low and still make money. The team has to be successful.


If you want the Red Wings to be able to spend only the amount the Penguins are able to spend, you would have to be a biased Penguins fan.


That's like ordering Walmart to leave me alone if I want to start a store with lower quality products for higher prices. That's called being on welfare. You have to allow the laws of supply and demand to hold NHL teams accountable, not protect them from the big teams in this way. We already have the NHL Entry Draft system to help guard against monopolies to some degree. We don't want to create an even playing field just for the sake of it. Teams have to EARN a seat with the "big dogs". As it turns out, the "big dogs" are actually LESS successful than the younger, low-payroll teams, because the "big dogs" think they can win without working for it...because that's how they get their salaries. You tell me that Jaromir Jagr earned $10 million dollars last year.
Why must they have the "right"? It's like saying any company has the right to corner a market share if they wish to. Well, that's illegal. Computer companies can't do it, nor can airlines or mining firms. The richer market teams shouldn't have the right to financially ruin other teams in their league. The whole premice of a league is that all teams have a chance to succeed if they are smart.

I certainly don't believe you can simply buy a cup winning team... but having pockets deep enough to keep the players you've drafted or developed has a huge impact.

I'm not a Pens fan, biased or otherwise, and yes I do believe they should both have the same payroll limit.

Having rules in a league to ensure competition is completely different than your example with Walmart. No one pays Walmart to watch them compete... they shop at Walmart, or at whatever other venue supplies what they want to purchase. The NHL is supposed to supply sports as entertainment, and therefore the more even the competition the better the entertainment.

You don't want to see an even playing field, "for the sake of it". Well, there's obviously no way to reason with such a well considered opinion.

quat is offline  
Old
11-22-2004, 07:48 PM
  #25
Foppa_Rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth...how about you?
Country: United States
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
The idea is to produce the best possible team you can. The team has to be successful and has to have a big enough fan base. The only way to be successful is either to be a billionaire team from the start or to be responsible with your money. You have to get good enough players for low enough prices so you have enough money left to lower ticket prices and still make a profit. The team has to find the balance between getting good players and being responsible with their money.

Foppa_Rules 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 10:17 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.