HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

How many agree NHL hockey will start up next month - 48 game schedule

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-17-2004, 06:06 PM
  #26
NomadManderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Soft cap is already on the table. That's exactly what Bettman proposed the other day. Bettman is not only intelligent - he is just as stubborn as Goodenow is and that's why the owners won't cave until they have regained control of their business. Reviewing the way the NHLPA appear to be panicking lately makes me feel they are close to realizing they have no choice but to cave on the cap issue if they hope to resume play. I really think the compromise will take place before Christmas.

Bettman proposed a hard cap. There was an amount between 34 and 38 million, but they could not go over 38 million for any reason. A soft cap would allow teams to go over for certain reasons, like signing a player the team drafted. The NHL has only proposed hard caps since the beginning.

I've avoided taking sides in this matter. I think both are greedy, both have their points. I will take sides the moment one of them puts a soft cap on the table. That side will be the one that cares about the only thing I care about... getting the damn league running again.

NomadManderson is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 06:36 PM
  #27
Egghammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 218
vCash: 500
I'm still an optimist that they will be playing this year

Egghammer is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 06:46 PM
  #28
chriss_co
Registered User
 
chriss_co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CALGARY
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
The owners are, afterall, trying to limit the amount of money players can make while, at the same time, exploiting the workers (in this case, the players) to make as much capital for themselves as possible.

I'd say in the current system the players are exploiting the owners. And I dont think you can equate a salary cap to exploitation of workers/players. Look at the NFL. Do you think the players mind being "exploited"?

chriss_co is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 07:55 PM
  #29
Feenom
Registered User
 
Feenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Spliffton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriss_co
If there is no season, I would call Bettman... Smart.

Why? Because it means he didn't give in to the players like he sorta did in 94. (I believe they were fighting for a luxory tax at the time but decided against it to start the season... although they did think they had received a CBA in their favor)

Just to remind those pro-players, I miss the game and I want the game back as badly as you do. BUT I'm not willing to sacrifice the future of the NHL by having the league accept the terms of the players just so that I can see hockey again.

Do it right or don't do it at all.
Exactly. I am pro-owner but will be very anti-owner if they settle for the PA offer for the sake of getting back to the ice. I as a hockey fan understand that it might take 1 or even 2 years of no hockey to either correct this game or start the whole damn thing from scratch. Either way I think and hope the fans benefit.

Tick Tock.....

Feenom is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 09:51 PM
  #30
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
I don't pretend to be an expert on Marxism or the Soviet Union, but my original post referred to the cold war, not Marxism. I know know, however, that Soviet communism is a complete and utter bastardization of what Marx pictured. The players indeed represent freedom and capitalism. They're fighting for their right to earn money in a free market that allows access to pursue capital. The owners are, afterall, trying to limit the amount of money players can make while, at the same time, exploiting the workers (in this case, the players) to make as much capital for themselves as possible.

I'm not exactly sure how you come to your conclusion. it's slightly off, I would say.
The players simply can't represent capitalism. Not possible. They have no capital invested in the league. The league drafts a player and incurs not only a loss of capital through salary investment, but the investment of a draft choice and the time and expertise that the league must acquire through spending capital in the form of time, material and expertise to develop the player who they can only hope will mature and eventually produce more capital for the owners in the form of paying customers. If the player doesn't work out, the capital is lost. So in this model, the capital risk is the owners, not the players. All the player brings to the table is his labor, or the sweat off his brow so to speak. Communism or socialism values the workers investment in manual labor to be of equal or greater value than that of the capitalist, who does not toil. You could say that in a free market economy the player is selling his labor to the highest bidder, which could be loosely defined as inherently capitalist, but that has nothing to do with either socialism or communism. I recommend The Theory and Practice of Communism, by R. N. Carew Hunt, penguin, 1950. The cold war analogy doesn't work for me either. Communism ultimately collapsed in the Soviet Union because a goverment run economy simply can't provide the incentives required to create capital wealth, because no one gets rich. Without wealth there isn't the capital to create things like hockey leagues and the kind of industry that begets even more wealth and industry. If anything, the players are, again , like those self same communists, who, having their material needs taken care of, lack the incentive to perform at a high enough level that their labor creates more wealth for anyone accepting themselves. For capitalism to work, their labor must reward the capitalist by returning to him his investment, but must earn more for the capitalist than his intitial investment, thereby creating more capital for the capitalist to acquire more and better players. Without that excess capital creation, the value of their labor decreases. And that, my friend, brings us back to the current situation, where the capitalists are asking themselves, why they should expend precious capital on an over valued labor pool that is not producing benefits in sufficient amounts to sustain the endeavor. Another good book to read is Arthur Schlesinger Jr's Crisis of the Old Order, Mariner Books.
-HckyFght.
P.S. Don't thank me, just send money.


Last edited by HckyFght*: 12-17-2004 at 09:59 PM.
HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 10:35 PM
  #31
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
And that, my friend, brings us back to the current situation, where the capitalists are asking themselves, why they should expend precious capital on an over valued labor pool that is not producing benefits in sufficient amounts to sustain the endeavor.
A fine question indeed. Especially after the players reset the market for them. After such a wonderful explanation of capitalism, it would seem curious to be suggesting a cap is still needed after a proper market correction to reflect the value they now place on their labour force.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 11:43 PM
  #32
Blackjack
Registered User
 
Blackjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: keyjhboardd +bro]ke
Posts: 6,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
A fine question indeed. Especially after the players reset the market for them. After such a wonderful explanation of capitalism, it would seem curious to be suggesting a cap is still needed after a proper market correction to reflect the value they now place on their labour force.
Not curious at all:

1 - CBA is for 10 years
2 - NHLPA proposed 24% rollback in salaries
3 - Current CBA has been proven to drive up salaries at a rate of 12% per year
4 - If we extrapolate the figure from 3, we learn that the league would be back to the same salary in 2 years.

IOW, if it was a CBA for two years, it would be a great idea.

Blackjack is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 12:28 AM
  #33
Atlas
Registered User
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
My guess is that the NHLPA will see that their best option is to go with cost-certainty. We'll have hockey going in February.

But it's up to the players. You never know what people will choose. They've already lost a ton of salary.

Capitalism/Socialism are systems. With capitalism you are free to do what you want with your money/stuff. With socialism other parties decide what you will do with your money/stuff.

There is a good bit of both goin' on. I tend to think what we'll see is Pragmatism which is a rather unprincipled approach from both sides. If the owners stick with their principle of cost-certainty I will be impressed. Principles, dude. And integrity. I'd like to see it.

Atlas is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 10:42 AM
  #34
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkboy
Bettman proposed a hard cap. There was an amount between 34 and 38 million, but they could not go over 38 million for any reason. A soft cap would allow teams to go over for certain reasons, like signing a player the team drafted. The NHL has only proposed hard caps since the beginning.

I've avoided taking sides in this matter. I think both are greedy, both have their points. I will take sides the moment one of them puts a soft cap on the table. That side will be the one that cares about the only thing I care about... getting the damn league running again.
I don't know the official meaning of hard vs. soft when it comes to hockey but I do know that Bettman introduced it as a soft cap. The fact there is a range and the fact it can move upwards or downwards depending on league revenue is likely the reason he introduced it as being soft!

eye is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 10:50 AM
  #35
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Ummmm the CBA is already extremely restrictive. Its the best CBA in sports. (was?)
This boggles my mind. I read your posts and you claim to be a Senators fan. You came within a few weeks of losing your favourite team to bankruptcy under the old CBA which you claim was the best in sports. Bettman had to promise your new owner Billionaire Eugene Melnyk that a cost certainty link to revenue was going to be part of the new CBA or you wouldn't even have a team today. It wasn't very long ago that your old owner who I believe is now bankrupt threatened to move the Sens if they didn't get x number of season ticket sales and some concessions from the government.

Some people are narrow minded and have a short memory. You as much as anyone should be thankful to Bettman for saving hockey in Ottawa, at least for the time being.

eye is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 12:30 PM
  #36
NomadManderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
I don't know the official meaning of hard vs. soft when it comes to hockey but I do know that Bettman introduced it as a soft cap. The fact there is a range and the fact it can move upwards or downwards depending on league revenue is likely the reason he introduced it as being soft!
Well, maybe there isn’t a clear definition of what a soft cap is, but I wouldn’t consider it soft unless there were specific exemptions that allowed teams to go over the cap. None of the NHLs proposals included that. It’s not surprising that Bettman would use the terminology “soft” to describe is plan but that is far more spin than truth. Even if the cap number could evolve from season to season depending on league revenue, none of the proposals would allow teams to sign their own draft picks at market value if that meant going over the cap. I’m not looking at this from the players POV, I’m looking at it from a team building POV. Teams that draft well should have the option of signing their players at market value. If the New York Rangers wanted to abuse that, they’d have to draft well first. Just because a few owners couldn’t control themselves and ruined the economic situation of the entire league, it doesn’t call for a broad overreaction that punishes teams that build themselves the right way.

NomadManderson is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 12:53 PM
  #37
misterjaggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Duke City
Country: United States
Posts: 14,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Another spin on the same topic but how many of you really believe that the NHLPA will cave on the Cost Certainty System in return for many other concessions so that hockey will start up in January.

Goodenow is a lot of things but there is one thing he is not - he is not stupid.
I hope you're right, because so far he's looked pretty darn stupid.

misterjaggers is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 01:11 PM
  #38
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
I hope you're right, because so far he's looked pretty darn stupid.
Goodenow is not stupid, but his ego is working against his interests and is clearly clouding his judgement.

In this negotiation, he has certainly been doing a very poor job.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 01:28 PM
  #39
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Goodenow is not stupid, but his ego is working against his interests and is clearly clouding his judgement.

In this negotiation, he has certainly been doing a very poor job.
Goodenow has an opportunity to save face right now though, he can't win the cost certainty war, but I think if the PA were to discuss cost certainty with the league, the owners would definetely make concessions in other areas.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 01:15 AM
  #40
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
A fine question indeed. Especially after the players reset the market for them. After such a wonderful explanation of capitalism, it would seem curious to be suggesting a cap is still needed after a proper market correction to reflect the value they now place on their labour force.
I actually don't think a cap is needed. I would take the union's offer if it included a buy-out clause for garunteed contracts.
-HckyFght

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 01:37 AM
  #41
Reilly311
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
I actually don't think a cap is needed.



Reilly311 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 01:00 PM
  #42
chara
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
IMO there'll be hockey in the new year. The NHLPA will "never" accept a salary cap until say midnight January 8 or the 10th or whenever the real drop dead date is.

If the owner's resolve is truly strong, the NHLPA will give them their cap but they'll get less rollback(10-15%) and less constricting free agency, lower UFA and lesser club penalties on RFA.

chara is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 07:23 PM
  #43
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,291
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
This whole situation kind of reminds me of the cold war. The players represent freedom and capitalism: the right to pursue whatever avenues you wish. The league represents communism in the sense that they wish to dictate an "egalitarian" league where everyone is on equal ground. Like the Soviets, equal footing is unneccessary if you're the one running the place.

Granted, that's an oversimplification, but the general idea is there.
The union is a monopoly. The control the entire supply of labour. 30 buyers and 1 seller. The owners have now taken on the form of a collective and bargaining monopsony to monopoly. 1 to 1. This isn't about communism or capitalism its about equal footing.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 07:40 PM
  #44
Smart Alek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Turkmenistan
Posts: 545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Goodenow is not stupid, but his ego is working against his interests and is clearly clouding his judgement.
That statement appears to contradict itself.

Smart Alek is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 07:40 PM
  #45
I in the Eye
Drop a ball it falls
 
I in the Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chara
IMO there'll be hockey in the new year. The NHLPA will "never" accept a salary cap until say midnight January 8 or the 10th or whenever the real drop dead date is.

If the owner's resolve is truly strong, the NHLPA will give them their cap but they'll get less rollback(10-15%) and less constricting free agency, lower UFA and lesser club penalties on RFA.
I would agree... It makes sense, IMO, given how things have played out... Perhaps this is part of the reason why Bettman doesn't want to declare a 'drop dead date'...

But my concern is that this may have gotten too personal (where strictly the issues may not be solely driving the decision making)... I could equally see Goodenow trying to make this 'very messy' for the owners (draft?, no playoff revenue, declining fan support?, declining season tickets?, etc.)... No hockey for a season (or more) would hurt... and the players have planned for a year off at any rate... It wouldn't surprise me if Goodenow went down fighting...

Our best hope, IMO, is if the NHL presents the NHLPA with another offer... and that offer goes to a union member vote (so Goodenow can say 'our membership has spoken, and this is what they want') - The players are the ones that save hockey and become the fans' heroes once again... Kind of ironic...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 07:56 PM
  #46
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,291
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
I don't know the official meaning of hard vs. soft when it comes to hockey but I do know that Bettman introduced it as a soft cap. The fact there is a range and the fact it can move upwards or downwards depending on league revenue is likely the reason he introduced it as being soft!
If his position was "There is the maximum number, don't go over it or we'll tax you" or "There is the maximum number, don't go over it unless re-signing your own players" then its a soft cap. Neither of those Bettman offered.

Bettman's cap is a hard cap ie "There is the maximum number, don't go over it". It might float up and down a bit with revenues but its a hard cap, at least my understanding of it.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 08:02 PM
  #47
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,291
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I would agree... It makes sense, IMO, given how things have played out... Perhaps this is part of the reason why Bettman doesn't want to declare a 'drop dead date'...

But my concern is that this may have gotten too personal (where strictly the issues may not be solely driving the decision making)... I could equally see Goodenow trying to make this 'very messy' for the owners (draft?, no playoff revenue, declining fan support?, declining season tickets?, etc.)... No hockey for a season (or more) would hurt... and the players have planned for a year off at any rate... It wouldn't surprise me if Goodenow went down fighting...
You have to hope Goodenow is a bigger man than that. The "Well if I lose I'm bringing down as many teams and owners as I can and any players that go down with them are collateral damage" attidute won't do anyone any good, especially his players.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 08:03 PM
  #48
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,291
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
I actually don't think a cap is needed. I would take the union's offer if it included a buy-out clause for garunteed contracts.
-HckyFght

Provided the union agree to lock in players arbitration prices at 2003-2004 less 24% for the life of the CBA. Which they won't, they don't want the prices to stay down at the level Goodenow has offered to put them.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 09:38 PM
  #49
I in the Eye
Drop a ball it falls
 
I in the Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
You have to hope Goodenow is a bigger man than that. The "Well if I lose I'm bringing down as many teams and owners as I can and any players that go down with them are collateral damage" attidute won't do anyone any good, especially his players.
agreed...

I in the Eye 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 01:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.