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.

75% on 40m ???

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2004, 11:45 AM
  #26
gerbilanium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
The rollback will help the Toronto's and Detroits the most which is why it is completely useless.

I think the owners should counter with a 10% increase in salaries and a 200% tax just to show that this ridiculous mail in rebate does nothing. Plus this will screw the Toronto's who went on a ridiculous spending spree this summer.

gerbilanium is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:08 PM
  #27
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Do you understand that when players sign there initial contract that the automatically make themselves subject to the CBA? This means that players agree that owners can take them to arbitration. If a player then refuses to play after a arbitrated settlement, the player can now be taken to court, sanctioned and fined. Players are not going to risk that, the money they could lose is far greater than what they would gain.
Players can refuse to play out a valid contract at any time. They can't be taken to court, just ask Bryden. The player can just opt to "retire". No court can compel them to work under a deal they refuse. Courts can force players to return advance payments (see Ricky Williams), but CANNOT fine or sanction any player for refusing to honour their contract.

Quote:
Actually yes the players would give up 600 million to get back to work. The strong majority of these guys just want to play hockey.
What a wonderful group of guys. No self-interest at all, just a sincere desire to play the game they love. Too funny. :lol

Well I guess we'll find out just how badly they want to get back to work on Tue. when they are presented with a cost certainty proposal.

Quote:
Got a question for you, how are you going to like it when under a hard cap, when your team is hit by the injury bug and you have 4 or 5 guys on IR, when you go to replace them off the open market, you now have to trade your best player to make cap room? Happens all the time in the NFL
Well worth the price of a level playing field.

BTW, Please cite 5 examples of this occuring. (should be easy since IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME)

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:08 PM
  #28
Pavel
Registered User
 
Pavel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Houston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Got a question for you, how are you going to like it when under a hard cap, when your team is hit by the injury bug and you have 4 or 5 guys on IR, when you go to replace them off the open market, you now have to trade your best player to make cap room? Happens all the time in the NFL
That's a bit of an exaggeration. In the NFL every team has four or five guys on IR. Trades rarely happen in the NFL during the season. Plus when injuries occur the players are brought in off the street make next to nothing. It would be a guy at the bottom of the roster that gets cut to make room. Not the superstar.

Pavel is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:17 PM
  #29
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,531
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavel
That's a bit of an exaggeration. In the NFL every team has four or five guys on IR. Trades rarely happen in the NFL during the season. Plus when injuries occur the players are brought in off the street make next to nothing. It would be a guy at the bottom of the roster that gets cut to make room. Not the superstar.

Most teams in the NFL keep cap space just for that case. I know a few years ago when the Lions had a bunch of guys of IR they were really close to running out of cap room.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:26 PM
  #30
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,040
vCash: 500
Tennessee has 14 players on IR this week and salary caps do hurt depth.

triggrman is online now  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:35 PM
  #31
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
IMO this is what the NHLPA hopes will be the next logical step in the bargaining process. Whether the NHL decides to play ball will be interesting to watch.
They won't, but that's the beauty of the proposal. The owners don't want a luxury tax with bite because the owners don't want to share revenues. They will accept a tax that is so onerous it is a defacto cap, but they have made it clear to the players that they don't want to share more than $65 million in revenues.

Anything that merely places a drag on large team payrolls provides additional revenues for small teams. It could acually increase spending on players. A luxury tax does do something for competitive balance but it does it by closing the revenue gap. The paycut makes it essentially irrelevant. Only three teams would pay a total of $1.6 million next year.

There are lots of ways to negotiate this deal, but it will all involve the owners. If they want more in one area, they will get less in another. If they have the gall to start the meeting on tuesday with a sentence that includes the words "cost certainty" the players will walk out.

I think the owners would be crazy not to sign it exactly as it is. On contracts already signed by the NHL - they are contractually obligated to pay this money right now - there is more than $550 million in savings!

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:37 PM
  #32
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Most teams in the NFL keep cap space just for that case. I know a few years ago when the Lions had a bunch of guys of IR they were really close to running out of cap room.
They keep cap space for that, and because you can sign a player midseason to a contract extension and have a portion of the signing bonus count against the current year's cap.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:04 PM
  #33
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Players can refuse to play out a valid contract at any time. They can't be taken to court, just ask Bryden. The player can just opt to "retire". No court can compel them to work under a deal they refuse. Courts can force players to return advance payments (see Ricky Williams), but CANNOT fine or sanction any player for refusing to honour their contract.



What a wonderful group of guys. No self-interest at all, just a sincere desire to play the game they love. Too funny. :lol

Well I guess we'll find out just how badly they want to get back to work on Tue. when they are presented with a cost certainty proposal.


Well worth the price of a level playing field.

BTW, Please cite 5 examples of this occuring. (should be easy since IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME)
Steelers, Titans, Arizona and Jaguars all come to mind. Here let me check for a 5th

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/ATL/6204929

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:05 PM
  #34
Schlep Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
The .20 on a 45 payroll is not even worth considering. What was Goodenow thinking. By there projections avaliable at NHLPA.com the total payroll tax money paid under current contracts would be a pinch to the teams over spending, 1.608 million which makes me laugh out loud.
That does not include the new players teams would have to sign. That's just guaranteed for 04-05.

Schlep Rock is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:11 PM
  #35
Pavel
Registered User
 
Pavel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Houston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Steelers, Titans, Arizona and Jaguars all come to mind. Here let me check for a 5th

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/ATL/6204929
These cuts were not because of injuries. Then transactions occured in February. Nearly every team has to cut veterans to get under the cap in the off season.

Pavel is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:58 AM
  #36
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavel
These cuts were not because of injuries. Then transactions occured in February. Nearly every team has to cut veterans to get under the cap in the off season.
Don't confuse vanlady with facts.


Quote:
There are lots of ways to negotiate this deal, but it will all involve the owners. If they want more in one area, they will get less in another. If they have the gall to start the meeting on tuesday with a sentence that includes the words "cost certainty" the players will walk out.
Well I hope they don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:26 AM
  #37
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
They won't, but that's the beauty of the proposal. The owners don't want a luxury tax with bite because the owners don't want to share revenues. They will accept a tax that is so onerous it is a defacto cap, but they have made it clear to the players that they don't want to share more than $65 million in revenues.

Anything that merely places a drag on large team payrolls provides additional revenues for small teams. It could acually increase spending on players. A luxury tax does do something for competitive balance but it does it by closing the revenue gap. The paycut makes it essentially irrelevant. Only three teams would pay a total of $1.6 million next year.

There are lots of ways to negotiate this deal, but it will all involve the owners. If they want more in one area, they will get less in another. If they have the gall to start the meeting on tuesday with a sentence that includes the words "cost certainty" the players will walk out.

I think the owners would be crazy not to sign it exactly as it is. On contracts already signed by the NHL - they are contractually obligated to pay this money right now - there is more than $550 million in savings!

Tom
Tom, I agree with a lot of what you've been writing.
However, I still don't understand why you think a luxury tax won't slow spending?
If the Wings want to sign a player, but they are over the cap and facing a dollar for dollar penalty, don't you think that will decrease the liklihood of them making the offer?
Don't you think the prospect of paying $12Million a year for a $6Million a year contract is going to slow down spending?
If not, why?

I agree with you on the Bettman thing.
If walks in and says, "we'll take your $24 percent, but we want cost-certainty too", it's not going to be pretty.

Maybe the league will pull a Goodenow and offer a $60 Million Hard Cap.
Try to win the principle but lose the numbers game.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:40 AM
  #38
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Bettman doesn't need to win the PR-game, he can leave it to Goodenow.

As long as the numbers make sense for the owners he can let Goodenow take the PR-win by getting a stiff luxury tax which would work as a defacto hard cap.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:47 PM
  #39
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Tom, I agree with a lot of what you've been writing.
However, I still don't understand why you think a luxury tax won't slow spending?
If the Wings want to sign a player, but they are over the cap and facing a dollar for dollar penalty, don't you think that will decrease the liklihood of them making the offer?
Don't you think the prospect of paying $12Million a year for a $6Million a year contract is going to slow down spending?
If not, why?
It will put a drag on Detroit's payroll, but not their spending. My assumption is that teams make decisions that they think are financially sound. If the Wings budget $65 million for player salaries, they spend $65 million. If several million of that is tax, fine. They won't spend $65 million plus the tax, but they will spend $65 million. If that was the end of it, we have a drag on the salaries.

The problem is that the several million has to go somewhere. It gets divided up and small revenue teams suddenly have an extra couple of million to spend. The owner sticks some of that in his pocket - which annoys Illitch no end - and spends the rest on players, thus undoing any good done by the Detroit cutback.

I'm not saying the idea is necessarily bad - it will narrow payroll disparities - but I don't think there is a competitive balance problem to be solved anyway so I don't care about it. I don't care what teams spend.

(I also don't care what players make. To me this is a great deal for the fan. We get what we had in terms of player stability and competition and team building strategies with the players making $500,000 less so fans can start crying, "Where are the ticket price cuts?")

A luxury tax is about optics, nothing more. The owners see it as pure revenue sharing and I can understand that perspective. If the problem was competitive balance it is a good solution, but there is no competitive balance problem to solve.

Quote:
Maybe the league will pull a Goodenow and offer a $60 Million Hard Cap.
Try to win the principle but lose the numbers game.
No way. There is no way around the fact that the players stuck half a billion on the table. I think the owners want to sign right now. They don't want the luxury tax but the players will happily drop that section.

Bettman's problem won't be selling this deal to the owners. They'll carry him around on their shoulders. These guys aren't long term kinds of fellows. Half of them don't plan to be in the business in five years. Not only is everyone profitable again, some teams are hugely profitable and everybody's franchise value just took a big jump. All they have to do is sign.

Bettman's problem is the fan. He's sold the bogus competitive balance issue. He's sold "the only way to solve this is with a hard cap" line of crap. Read these boards. How does he manage the PR fallout? He's sold the competitive balance problem. It may be a load of crap, but how does he unsell it?

It really was a brilliant Goodenow stroke. He's stuck Gary between the rock and the hard place. His members are horrified at what they are giving up. They won't give a penny more. They will sink the league first. If he NHL turns this down, they will never get a deal with the players. Furthermore, union ranks are going to close so tight, it's a joke. What does Mike Commodore say now? This deal costs him $100,000. It cost Roenick $6 million. Man, the NHLPA takes care of those greedy stars first, don't they?

Will the owners give back the money in another burst of salary inflation? They probably will give back a good chunk of it because the players conceded a lot more than the owners needed. Will we be back in the same place in six years? Probably. That's more than fine by the players (and this fan). They will be able to say, "Obviously you had the money. The market keeps speaking."

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:54 PM
  #40
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Tom, you're forgetting that Bettman will most likely give a counter-proposal with very small cut-backs and a luxury-tax.

People will once again think 'wow, Bettman doesn't force them to take a big paycut!'

A large roll-back with ridiculous tax doesn't impress anyone who knows anything about the NHL economics, that's a fact.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:10 PM
  #41
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Tom, you're forgetting that Bettman will most likely give a counter-proposal with very small cut-backs and a luxury-tax.

People will once again think 'wow, Bettman doesn't force them to take a big paycut!'
It is my view that Bettman does not want a luxury tax so he will not do this. It is revenue sharing and if there is one thing NHL owners have proven over and over again is that they do not want to share revenues. The Bettman srategy has been "Hard cap or bust".

The strategy was to table a series of hard cap proposals with a ridiculously low threshold with an average salary of $1.3 million and wait. When the players broke, Bettman makes peace by ratcheting up the owner offer to about $1.5 or $1.6 million. Ratcheting up the owner offer wouldn't cost anything because existing contracts would push the average that high any way.

Goodenow torpedoed that strategy by taking the $1.3 million.

What does Bettman do now? "No, no! We can afford to pay more to get a cap! Levitt was wrong!"

Quote:
A large roll-back with ridiculous tax doesn't impress anyone who knows anything about the NHL economics, that's a fact.
It's going to impress the owners and they are the ones who count.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:24 PM
  #42
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It is my view that Bettman does not want a luxury tax so he will not do this. It is revenue sharing and if there is one thing NHL owners have proven over and over again is that they do not want to share revenues. The Bettman srategy has been "Hard cap or bust".
Bettman has been talking about cost certainty and hard cap is only one solution. A stiff luxury tax is basicly the same thing. Teams are already sharing revenues, tv-contracts and merchandise sales (partly). I don't think it's a problem for them to expand that a little. There will never be full revenue sharing but partial is already existing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The strategy was to table a series of hard cap proposals with a ridiculously low threshold with an average salary of $1.3 million and wait. When the players broke, Bettman makes peace by ratcheting up the owner offer to about $1.5 or $1.6 million. Ratcheting up the owner offer wouldn't cost anything because existing contracts would push the average that high any way.
I believe it's all about negotiating strategy, he's just playing hardball. He made PA to blink first to get a better position for the real negotiations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It's going to impress the owners and they are the ones who count. Tom
Remember, it takes only 8 GMs/owners to torpedo any deal.

Lowe, Sutter, Lou, Jacobs, Poile, Maclean, Keenan and Wirtz...Those 8 hardliners will make sure that NHL's goal is achieved.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:27 PM
  #43
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Bettman has been talking about cost certainty and hard cap is only one solution. A stiff luxury tax is basicly the same thing.
A luxury cap so stiff that nobody exceeds it is not a luxury tax. It is a defacto salary cap. Cost certainty is tying salaries to revenues. That's what the players and owners mean by a salary cap.

Bettman now faces a choice. The owners can take the massive amount of cash the players have put on the table and probably enjoy one of their most profitable years ever. Or they reject the offer - in other words, stick with cost certainty - and tank the season and probably the league.

If a luxury tax system was pretty much the same, Bettman negotiates around the first player proposal. He gets them to concede more and more from the initial 5% offer and a stiffer and stiffer tax.

What was the lockout for if getting that is now his objective? He's been put in the position of offering back cash he has long claimed the owners did not have to get what? Something that he does not want?

Quote:
Teams are already sharing revenues, tv-contracts and merchandise sales (partly). I don't think it's a problem for them to expand that a little. There will never be full revenue sharing but partial is already existing.
It is easy to share league revenues, but in the NHL these revenues amount to 9% of total revenues. League revenues are dropping by $60 million with the new TV deal. The league has rejected player proposals for other revenue sharing higher than $65 million. To them - making up for the loss of TV dollars - is "significant" revenue sharing.

Goodenow makes that point pretty clearly in the player proposal. There is almost no revenue being raised by his luxury tax because the threshold combined with the rollback puts almost everyone under the threshold. Result? No revenue sharing. That is for the owner's benefit.

Quote:
I believe it's all about negotiating strategy, he's just playing hardball. He made PA to blink first to get a better position for the real negotiations.
Yeah? What are the chances now for a hard salary cap? For a formal link between revenues and salaries? I'd say they are zero. Is that the better position Bettman was looking for?

Quote:
Remember, it takes only 8 GMs/owners to torpedo any deal.
Right. And it takes 16 votes to fire Bettman which means all torpedos are off. Goodenow gave the owners 500 million reasons to amend any voting mechanisms in place.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:49 PM
  #44
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
A luxury cap so stiff that nobody exceeds it is not a luxury tax. It is a defacto salary cap. Cost certainty is tying salaries to revenues. That's what the players and owners mean by a salary cap.

Bettman now faces a choice. The owners can take the massive amount of cash the players have put on the table and probably enjoy one of their most profitable years ever. Or they reject the offer - in other words, stick with cost certainty - and tank the season and probably the league.

If a luxury tax system was pretty much the same, Bettman negotiates around the first player proposal. He gets them to concede more and more from the initial 5% offer and a stiffer and stiffer tax.

What was the lockout for if getting that is now his objective? He's been put in the position of offering back cash he has long claimed the owners did not have to get what? Something that he does not want?



It is easy to share league revenues, but in the NHL these revenues amount to 9% of total revenues. League revenues are dropping by $60 million with the new TV deal. The league has rejected player proposals for other revenue sharing higher than $65 million. To them - making up for the loss of TV dollars - is "significant" revenue sharing.

Goodenow makes that point pretty clearly in the player proposal. There is almost no revenue being raised by his luxury tax because the threshold combined with the rollback puts almost everyone under the threshold. Result? No revenue sharing. That is for the owner's benefit.



Yeah? What are the chances now for a hard salary cap? For a formal link between revenues and salaries? I'd say they are zero. Is that the better position Bettman was looking for?



Right. And it takes 16 votes to fire Bettman which means all torpedos are off. Goodenow gave the owners 500 million reasons to amend any voting mechanisms in place.

Tom
Amusing spin job Tom.

Just make sure you're around at the end of next week to explain what went wrong with your little fantasy scenario.

The players desperation jumps off the page of this proposal. Bettman has the PA right where he wants them. He'll come back with a CBA which features cost certainty and watch the PA blink again when they realize that the league is fully prepared to let the season go.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:16 PM
  #45
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It will put a drag on Detroit's payroll, but not their spending. My assumption is that teams make decisions that they think are financially sound. If the Wings budget $65 million for player salaries, they spend $65 million. If several million of that is tax, fine. They won't spend $65 million plus the tax, but they will spend $65 million. If that was the end of it, we have a drag on the salaries.
But that's the point, Tom.
If the Wings spend $80Million like last year, they'll only get $60 Million worth of player.
So the players on the Wings will only get $60Mill instead of $80Mill.
That slows money going to players. It has to. Unless you're under the impression that these teams have absolutely no budget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The problem is that the several million has to go somewhere. It gets divided up and small revenue teams suddenly have an extra couple of million to spend. The owner sticks some of that in his pocket - which annoys Illitch no end - and spends the rest on players, thus undoing any good done by the Detroit cutback.
Ah, now there you have a point. But those teams might just count it as profit instead of spending it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I'm not saying the idea is necessarily bad - it will narrow payroll disparities - but I don't think there is a competitive balance problem to be solved anyway so I don't care about it. I don't care what teams spend.

(I also don't care what players make. To me this is a great deal for the fan. We get what we had in terms of player stability and competition and team building strategies with the players making $500,000 less so fans can start crying, "Where are the ticket price cuts?")
I do care about the disparities between markets, only because I want NHL hockey to thrive in cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and maybe even in Winnipeg and Quebec City again someday.
However, it is not a cost problem in my eyes as much as it is a revenue problem.
To me, a luxury tax provides relief for those small teams without completely killing the bigger teams' ability to build a contender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
A luxury tax is about optics, nothing more. The owners see it as pure revenue sharing and I can understand that perspective. If the problem was competitive balance it is a good solution, but there is no competitive balance problem to solve.
I believe there is a competitive balance problem. It's not as bad as some suggest. And I don't know why the NHL needs Carolina to stay in Carolina. The market cares nothing for the sport, yet Bettman is using Carolina as a baseline for his radical redesign of the NHL.
Move'em to Hartford. Or Winnipeg. Or Sioux Falls. Or Portland. I don't care. Just stop redesigning the game for the Carolina's and Nashville's of the world.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
No way. There is no way around the fact that the players stuck half a billion on the table. I think the owners want to sign right now. They don't want the luxury tax but the players will happily drop that section.

Bettman's problem won't be selling this deal to the owners. They'll carry him around on their shoulders. These guys aren't long term kinds of fellows. Half of them don't plan to be in the business in five years. Not only is everyone profitable again, some teams are hugely profitable and everybody's franchise value just took a big jump. All they have to do is sign.
You may be right about half the owners not being here in 5 years. But they might want a cap.
There is a train of thought out there that the salary cap is only a tool to increase the worth of franchises. Selling a franchise is where owners make their money.
You wonder if big market teams will nix a luxury tax, knowing full well that sharing revenue won't help their franchise value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Bettman's problem is the fan. He's sold the bogus competitive balance issue. He's sold "the only way to solve this is with a hard cap" line of crap. Read these boards. How does he manage the PR fallout? He's sold the competitive balance problem. It may be a load of crap, but how does he unsell it?

It really was a brilliant Goodenow stroke. He's stuck Gary between the rock and the hard place. His members are horrified at what they are giving up. They won't give a penny more. They will sink the league first. If he NHL turns this down, they will never get a deal with the players. Furthermore, union ranks are going to close so tight, it's a joke. What does Mike Commodore say now? This deal costs him $100,000. It cost Roenick $6 million. Man, the NHLPA takes care of those greedy stars first, don't they?

Will the owners give back the money in another burst of salary inflation? They probably will give back a good chunk of it because the players conceded a lot more than the owners needed. Will we be back in the same place in six years? Probably. That's more than fine by the players (and this fan). They will be able to say, "Obviously you had the money. The market keeps speaking."

Tom
The only thing that will save hockey is the end of obstruction. It's the only way the league will ever increase ratings and gate receipts.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:20 PM
  #46
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Players can refuse to play out a valid contract at any time. They can't be taken to court, just ask Bryden. The player can just opt to "retire". No court can compel them to work under a deal they refuse.
1) Wasnt Yashin forced to come back and play out his contract with OTT ? Maybe it didnt make it to court, but the end result was the same. Yashin was forced to play out his contract.

2) Whats wrong if a player decides to retire ? Is he a gladiator to serve at his masters and the fans discression ? if he doesnt want to play hockey he doesnt have to.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:21 PM
  #47
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavel
That's a bit of an exaggeration. In the NFL every team has four or five guys on IR. Trades rarely happen in the NFL during the season. Plus when injuries occur the players are brought in off the street make next to nothing. It would be a guy at the bottom of the roster that gets cut to make room. Not the superstar.
maybe, but its much easier to find competent pro football players off the street than pro hockey players.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:34 PM
  #48
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
1) Wasnt Yashin forced to come back and play out his contract with OTT ? Maybe it didnt make it to court, but the end result was the same. Yashin was forced to play out his contract.

2) Whats wrong if a player decides to retire ? Is he a gladiator to serve at his masters and the fans discression ? if he doesnt want to play hockey he doesnt have to.

dr
1) Yes but it didn't stop him from using the holdout as a strategy to force his way out of Ottawa.

2) Nothing wrong if they don't want to play. However, it is incorrect to suggest that owner initiated arbitration will end holdouts. Agents and players still have this tactic available to them.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:38 PM
  #49
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
1) Yes but it didn't stop him from using the holdout as a strategy to force his way out of Ottawa.

2) Nothing wrong if they don't want to play. However, it is incorrect to suggest that owner initiated arbitration will end holdouts. Agents and players still have this tactic available to them.
1) i fail to see how OTT was hurt by this. a) its better to have absolutly NOTHING than Yashin, never mind pay him many millions for it. b) they managed to get Spezza AND Chara in exchange for their "hardship".

2) fine. lets not use the term holdout though. i can only think of two holdouts in at least 10 years, Tkachuk and Yashin. both players should have been sued and kicked in the nuts. however, a player who has fulfilled his contract, is under no obligation to play hockey if he doesnt want to agree to the terms of a contract.

what do either of these have to do with a "good reason" to cancel a hockey season. how many real cases are there in a year of hardship to a team in regards to player signings ? seems like a red herring in the overall picture.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:46 PM
  #50
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
1) i fail to see how OTT was hurt by this. a) its better to have absolutly NOTHING than Yashin, never mind pay him many millions for it. b) they managed to get Spezza AND Chara in exchange for their "hardship".

2) fine. lets not use the term holdout though. i can only think of two holdouts in at least 10 years, Tkachuk and Yashin. both players should have been sued and kicked in the nuts. however, a player who has fulfilled his contract, is under no obligation to play hockey if he doesnt want to agree to the terms of a contract.

what do either of these have to do with a "good reason" to cancel a hockey season. how many real cases are there in a year of hardship to a team in regards to player signings ? seems like a red herring in the overall picture.

dr
New CBA's bring new agent extortion strategies, simply because it wasn't popular in the past doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Owner initiated abitration does not eliminate holdouts.

SENSible1* 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 03:34 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.