HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

The Bettman counter-offer thread.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2004, 03:29 PM
  #26
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
There's no way around a hard cap, your either under it or over it...
Hum, have you ever met an accountant? I'm sure some are sharpening their pencils as we speak...

Gros Bill is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 03:29 PM
  #27
Histrion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Fortified City
Posts: 3,338
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Histrion
Quote:
Originally Posted by EaGLE1
Bettman will talk loud today. This could be the most important financial moment of NHL.

I support Bettman all the way. I don't care about losing the season. I'd rather lose the season than fellow canadians teams like Edmonton or Calgary.

Do you think Bettman will ask for a hard salary cap again or a stiff luxury tax?

I don't think it's normal that a syndicate is leading an enterprise. NHLPA last offer was a joke. And I don't understand the players. If they want good salaries, the league must be healthy...It's not by killing the league with huge salaries that the players will earn big money for long stretches of time. When they say they do that for the next generation of players, that total ********.

I can't believe some fans are buying that. Grow some balls. Bettman is doing a heck of a job!!!
Just to keep your position while saying "No!" to every other ideas while you are in a NEGOCIATION process and that the other side has made concessions is a piss-poor job. Let alone alone a "heck of a job".

Histrion is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 03:30 PM
  #28
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
I disagree. Say you get a flat tire. There's a little piece of glass in the tire and it caused a puncture. But if you insist on saying the flat tire is a result of bad roads, my bet is you'll have another flat pretty soon. You have to know what caused a problem in order to fix it.
Again, using your analogy, whether or not the flat occured as a result of a piece of glass or bad roads, the fact still remains that there is a flat, does it not?

417 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 03:32 PM
  #29
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
Hum, have you ever met an accountant? I'm sure some are sharpening their pencils as we speak...
Look at the NFL, there's no way around the salary cap, you can get creative with the length of a contract, or the bonus and what not, but every year, there's a cap in the NFL, and a team cannot function, if it is over the cap... there's no way around it

417 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 03:36 PM
  #30
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
Again, using your analogy, whether or not the flat occured as a result of a piece of glass or bad roads, the fact still remains that there is a flat, does it not?
Aha, grasshopper! yes, you still have a flat, but if you fix it w/o removing the glass, you'll have another, then another...

Gros Bill is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 03:37 PM
  #31
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
Look at the NFL, there's no way around the salary cap, you can get creative with the length of a contract, or the bonus and what not, but every year, there's a cap in the NFL, and a team cannot function, if it is over the cap... there's no way around it
Doesn't the NFL also have revenue sharing? and very very lucrative TV and merchandising contracts? Hard to compare the two and apply the same solution.

Gros Bill is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 03:41 PM
  #32
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 18,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
Doesn't the NFL also have revenue sharing? and very very lucrative TV and merchandising contracts? Hard to compare the two and apply the same solution.
Yes, but the reason, they have revenue sharing, a lucrative TV deal and merchandising contracts, is because they've had a cap in place for a while, which has enabled the NFL to have competitive teams, and unpredictable Super Bowl winners, which increases fan base, which increases revenue...cost certainty=more competitive teams=broader fan base=more revenue to share between players and owners...

and just to add my 02. cents about what I think Bettman will propose, he'll do 1 proposal with a cap and a bunch of other stuff, and I think he'll also have a proposal, where there's no cap, but there will also be no guaranteed contracts (something i'd love to see in the NHL)

417 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 05:17 PM
  #33
fufonzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,510
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to fufonzo Send a message via MSN to fufonzo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
Aha, grasshopper! yes, you still have a flat, but if you fix it w/o removing the glass, you'll have another, then another...
The way I see it, just blowing the tire back up and keeping the piece of glass there is like taking a 24% cutback on salaries. It's good for now but in a little while the problem's gonna come back. You need a permanent solution.

I don't understand why you're against a cap so much. Like Sqeaky and 417 have been saying, there IS a problem with the NHL right now and the owners are trying to fix it by putting restrictions on THEMSELVES.

They signed a CBA in 1994 and it really didnt work out for them. Now they've looked at other leagues and possible solutions to fix this problem and see revenue sharing and a salary cap as the solution adn theyre trying to implement it.

If I work for a branch in a large company (say Walmart) and WalMart puts a salary cap on all their stores (employees can't make more than $500 000/year combined). Who the ***** am I to decide if that's fair. You don't like it, go work at KMart.


What I would find interesting though, would be to see a cap put on ticket prices.

fufonzo is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 05:23 PM
  #34
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ax˛+bx+c
He failed to do many things... No TV contract and a poor diluted product. Talk about getting the job done!
I'm only talking about his positions in this lock-out. The rest of the job was not done correctly.

But I heard that when he arrived, he bring to the NHL a lot of good TV contract...Then, he tried to bring teams in every corners of America. This could have work. Imagine a healthy NHL. With americans who love the game. Imagine a better NHL...

The repetitive lock-out really didn't help building a fan base in the US...

I admit he did nothing for the game.

But he seems to know how to handle lock-outs. He's very firm.

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 05:23 PM
  #35
goalchenyuk
Registered User
 
goalchenyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: montreal
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Gros Bill]a) The owners did create this mess - they signed a CBA they felt was just fine, then drove salaries sky-high. How can players be held responsible for signing ridiculous salaries? They didn't hold a gun to owner "X"'s head, you know.

i think that it's not all the owners that are responsable of the way it went.But once ottawa , per exemple , gave all that money to Daigle , than suddendly , all the agents were asking the same money for their first draft players.

Ny did the same by overpaying their people ;and once you 've got a player wining x that scored y goals , all the others players that have y goals want the same contract.It's not a one way avenue, and if 2-3 gm are more responsable for the overall situation , agents and players have also did what was need to get more from the owners ( strike , euro league etc )

anyway , responsable or not , i think that the players are playing a curious game ; they pretend that they are not responsables for their overpaid salaries , so that they don't have to pay for it now.

they don't have to '' pay '' anything , they just have to realise that they were lucky to have all that money , but that now it's over .They just have to realise that the market went to far and now , they have to go back and receive less money


Last edited by goalchenyuk: 12-14-2004 at 05:32 PM.
goalchenyuk is online now  
Old
12-14-2004, 05:34 PM
  #36
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
It means that the owners are directly responsible for the current state of affairs and that they shouldn't be blaming players (or their agents) for it. It means that owners should not count on players to "show restraint" - that is up to the GMs the owners themselves hire. It also means that no matter what system is put in place, if owners continue to screw each other over, then the "new system" will not work either.

As I said earlier, under the now lapsed CBA, owners could control costs all they wanted, but chose not to. Maybe that is the problem they should try to fix.
1 of the 30 GM is doing a mistake and all the structures are messed.
It's a competition sport. And some GMs can spend their money freely because they have plenty of money (Red Wings, Colorado, Rangers, F.Toronto).

I'm with 417 here. I hate to hear that owners created that mess. It's the players who create mess by not accepting something reasonnable for both parts, a 40$M hard salary cap.

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 05:39 PM
  #37
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awesome`
Just to keep your position while saying "No!" to every other ideas while you are in a NEGOCIATION process and that the other side has made concessions is a piss-poor job. Let alone alone a "heck of a job".
I don't know yet what Bettman and owners have decided. I have not watched the news yet.

Owners wants to negociate. Negociate a system that will help control the costs.

I'd say it's the players who don't want to negociate. Everybody know that even with the 24% rollback, in 2 years, we're still in trouble.

Nice system to save hockey

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 08:03 PM
  #38
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
The game is afoot, let the negotiations continue.

Why can't the players just say, "we have more negotiating to do", like Bettman when he said "we are not that far apart" (not that I am endorsing Bettman).

These two groups need a mediator.

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 08:11 PM
  #39
nic29+
Registered User
 
nic29+'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,712
vCash: 500
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/A...hub=topstories

nic29+ is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 10:25 PM
  #40
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machiavelli
These two groups need a mediator.
That's obvious... What the NHL and the NHLPA seem to forget is that the 2 billion revenue comes almost exclusively from the fan's wallets. Get over your little problems and fast, because there's already a lot of money lost thus far.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 10:32 PM
  #41
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Like Bettman said, and i trust him, there's only 2% of salaries difference between NHL and NHLPA. Now, it's only time to build the system.

Past make us learn that a good system is needed. Not only a cut of salary.

Nice move by Bettman, 0% cut on 800 000 and less players...Now 90% of the players are advantaged by this mesure over the 24% fix proposition.

Bettman is now in the driver seat

You know what would be great?

1.You put a hard cap at 50M$
2.Between 40 and 45M$, there's a luxury tax of 40%.
3.Between 45 and 50M$, there's a luxury tax of 100%.
4.With Bettman proposal of salary cut different depending on salaries.

You got a deal. It's free enough for Goodenow. It's strong enough for Bettman.

What about that?

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 11:09 PM
  #42
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EaGLE1
Like Bettman said, and i trust him, there's only 2% of salaries difference between NHL and NHLPA. Now, it's only time to build the system.

Past make us learn that a good system is needed. Not only a cut of salary.

Nice move by Bettman, 0% cut on 800 000 and less players...Now 90% of the players are advantaged by this mesure over the 24% fix proposition.

Bettman is now in the driver seat

You know what would be great?

1.You put a hard cap at 50M$
2.Between 40 and 45M$, there's a luxury tax of 40%.
3.Between 45 and 50M$, there's a luxury tax of 100%.
4.With Bettman proposal of salary cut different depending on salaries.

You got a deal. It's free enough for Goodenow. It's strong enough for Bettman.

What about that?
You'd be better off at a hard cap of say $65 million. A salary floor of say $30 million and a 300% luxury tax for every dollar over $40 million similar to the NBA.

Basically you would eliminate the Blues and Rangers of the world from totally over-balancing things. The tax would serve as a strong detterent towards over-spending but those owners who want to can continue to do so at their own risk. The floor prevents unscrupulous owners like Bill Wirtz from putting a garbage product on the ice and pocketing the cash.

Thus the cap is high enough that the PA can live with it (since very few teams will realistically get there anyway) and the tax system is a system the players can live with and provides many owners with the confidence it will act as a detterent to the Torontos or Detroits of the league, so there is some competitive balance. It also allows some flexibility to keep a strong nucleus of players together for another run or two.... as long as you're willing to pay the price.

Malefic74 is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 06:49 AM
  #43
Stefan_Latulippe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
Ha ! I can't wait to see across-the-board reduction in ticket prices once they have a new deal. Yeah, right, and the Maple Leafs will win a Cup, and snowballs won't melt in hell.
We could add to your list: We, the players, are doing that for the "next" generation of players and not for ourselves.......

Also, when Jagr signed for 10 millions or more, I wonder if he told himself "Humm. I where they will get the money to pay me?" OK, they will raise ticket price, cool.

Stefan_Latulippe is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 06:53 AM
  #44
Stefan_Latulippe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
Doesn't the NFL also have revenue sharing? and very very lucrative TV and merchandising contracts? Hard to compare the two and apply the same solution.
Since the players were ready to give back 24% of the salaries Gros Bill, why don't they take that money and buy TWO franchises? Since, the owners are making soooo much money on their backs, they would get a good look from the inside and see how much the owners are screwing them.

Stefan_Latulippe is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 09:08 AM
  #45
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74
You'd be better off at a hard cap of say $65 million. A salary floor of say $30 million and a 300% luxury tax for every dollar over $40 million similar to the NBA.

Basically you would eliminate the Blues and Rangers of the world from totally over-balancing things. The tax would serve as a strong detterent towards over-spending but those owners who want to can continue to do so at their own risk. The floor prevents unscrupulous owners like Bill Wirtz from putting a garbage product on the ice and pocketing the cash.

Thus the cap is high enough that the PA can live with it (since very few teams will realistically get there anyway) and the tax system is a system the players can live with and provides many owners with the confidence it will act as a detterent to the Torontos or Detroits of the league, so there is some competitive balance. It also allows some flexibility to keep a strong nucleus of players together for another run or two.... as long as you're willing to pay the price.
There is a millions solutions. But Goodenow can't negociate to instorate the system that everybody know the hockey need.

EaGLE1 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 10:22 AM.

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.