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.

Linden feels the NHLPA was INSULTED,feels the season is over

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2005, 02:12 PM
  #76
PeterSidorkiewicz
Original *** allstar
 
PeterSidorkiewicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 15,149
vCash: 500
Stop blaming the players for the "LOCKOUT" which is triggered by the owners. No reading into anything "if the players did this and accepted that wed have a season so its the players fault" Were NOT having a season right now because BETTMAN screwed up the NHL in his past 10 years and decided to go with another lockout instead of just TRYING a luxury tax for a little bit to see what would happen. Let me give you a hypothetical question right here for all of you. Lets just say the lockout ends before the next season and they agree to a luxury tax, and 5 years down the road the luxury tax working perfectly fine, now i know it could stink as well but im saying hypothetically. Would you be pissed off the owners spent a year off not taking a luxury tax which ended up working so well?

PeterSidorkiewicz is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:12 PM
  #77
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Why do people always say "poor billionaire owners"?...They have done things in life that have made them rich (unless they got inheritence lol)....They have all the risk in this. What risk does a player have? An owner can make a dumb decision, like many have, and then overpay a player. The player goes to the bank. The owner screws up and loses money. It's called a risk.

If people say "Business isn't a guarantee", then how come Pro-PA people call owners dumb and stupid? Becasue they went for a risk and tried to improve their team? It didn't work. Are they stupid becasue of that? They might sound like babies now, but they have realized that enoughs enough. The players should be grateful that they made the NHl for one. Secondly, they critisize the same owners who put food on their tables and pay for their kids education. Shows you how much loyalty and brains a bunch of players have.

I'm sick of people saying "Idiot proof". What's your goal in a business? I don't know about most people, but my goal is to make loooots of $$$$$$$.....Owners do whatever they can to ensure that. They lay off people. They cut wages. Sometimes they just shut down becasue it's not worth it. I hear that the players have every right to use their talents to make as much money as they can. Owners have every right to ensure their business makes profits. Simple as that. It might not be fair the way they are doing it, but that's reality. The players act like they are going from a 1.8 M average salary to a 0.3M average salary.

 
Old
01-21-2005, 02:15 PM
  #78
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
What most people don't understand is that NHL players, while their career is short, still make many times mroe than an average Joe will in his ENTIRE career.
Sooooo easy to run other's lives, isn't it? Soooo easy to tell someone else what to accept, put limitations on their earning power and how to spend/save their money.

"The Average Joe's" career earnings have nothing to do with an NHL player. But then again, some here are actually looking forward to watching the Average Joe masquarade on NHL rinks next fall , so go figure....

Professionally/economically speaking (only), we are not all born equal. Some attain higher monetary levels than others. Much higher. That does not mean that those people should settle for what anyone (especially fans with acute petty cla$$ envy) wishes to impose on them. No "masters" here, in case anyone forgot.

The players will continue to negotiate, as is their right, and ultimately strike a deal. It could be a "fair and equitable" one, or it could be one in which they lose a lot, as some fans smugly and assuredly guarantee.

Trottier is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:16 PM
  #79
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
John Davidson says "It's over" unless the NHL gets off the hard cap

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...21_130156_1228

Sorry, Trevor, the players aren't the "product." The sweater with the team logo with the history and brand recognition behind it is the product and that's what people pay for. If you and your friends spent your work life playing hockey with sweaters without the logos of the Leafs, Wings, Oil, Flames, etc. on, you'd see this, as you'd be making 1/10 what you're making now. See. e.g., the "all-star" games in Europe.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:19 PM
  #80
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
Stop blaming the players for the "LOCKOUT" which is triggered by the owners. No reading into anything "if the players did this and accepted that wed have a season so its the players fault" Were NOT having a season right now because BETTMAN screwed up the NHL in his past 10 years and decided to go with another lockout instead of just TRYING a luxury tax for a little bit to see what would happen. Let me give you a hypothetical question right here for all of you. Lets just say the lockout ends before the next season and they agree to a luxury tax, and 5 years down the road the luxury tax working perfectly fine, now i know it could stink as well but im saying hypothetically. Would you be pissed off the owners spent a year off not taking a luxury tax which ended up working so well?
Like last time, they should just try out this new "system" the PA has? Last time the owners "tried" something, it ended up where we are right now...

i'm still waiting BTW, what's so awful about a cap from the players point of view?

417 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:20 PM
  #81
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
Like last time, they should just try out this new "system" the PA has? Last time the owners "tried" something, it ended up where we are right now...

i'm still waiting BTW, what's so awful about a cap from the players point of view?
This was said in another post. The NHL compromised in 95. The NHL compromised last time to get the players to play in the olympics. They aren't going to do it a third time and get screwed.

 
Old
01-21-2005, 02:21 PM
  #82
PeterSidorkiewicz
Original *** allstar
 
PeterSidorkiewicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 15,149
vCash: 500
Trottier I completely agree with your statements. Everyone says the owners worked all their life to achieve all this mass amount of money, but the players AREN'T allowed to do the samething? The players are greedy people but why cant the owners accept losing millions of dollars every year. They should stop being so greedy right and just take the loss for the game of hockey. Millions isnt THAT big of a deal to them. Why arent the PLAYERS allowed to try and get the best deal available to THEM as well?

PeterSidorkiewicz is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:21 PM
  #83
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
i'm still waiting BTW, what's so awful about a cap from the players point of view?
We're all waiting and have been for 4 months.

tantalum is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:21 PM
  #84
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
Stop blaming the players for the "LOCKOUT" which is triggered by the owners. No reading into anything "if the players did this and accepted that wed have a season so its the players fault" Were NOT having a season right now because BETTMAN screwed up the NHL in his past 10 years and decided to go with another lockout instead of just TRYING a luxury tax for a little bit to see what would happen. Let me give you a hypothetical question right here for all of you. Lets just say the lockout ends before the next season and they agree to a luxury tax, and 5 years down the road the luxury tax working perfectly fine, now i know it could stink as well but im saying hypothetically. Would you be pissed off the owners spent a year off not taking a luxury tax which ended up working so well?
Well-put and well thought out, but it's hard to get around the fact that the NFL and NBA have salary caps. For that reason, it's impossible to think the owners are irrational for proposing one and sticking to their guns.

The players stand against one, on the other hand, is irrational given the two leagues with caps. Moreover, their failure to see the owners' resolve and the economic standing of their sport borders on delusional. And when one side to a negotiation is rational and the other is delusional, it makes sense to me to blame the delusional side for the breakdown and failure to agree.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:21 PM
  #85
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
I'm still waiting BTW, what's so awful about a cap from the players point of view?
There is a board-worth of well-though-out answers to that questions, just peruse the threads here.

You may not agree with them, but they exist, en masse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
Well-put and well thought out, but it's hard to get around the fact that the NFL and NBA have salary caps.
A huge distinction, however, must be made between the two forms of caps in each league. Personally, I am not against a softcap, like that in the NBA. (And, despite rhetoric to the contrary, even a liberal luxury tax imposed in MLB in 2002 has served as a quasi-cap on salaries, as but three teams haved dared go over that artificial economic barrier.)

A hardcap is an entirely different animal, as you likely know. A draconian measure that appeals to those who simply wish to punish successful teams, and the players, for "making too much money".


Last edited by Trottier: 01-21-2005 at 02:26 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:22 PM
  #86
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
Trottier I completely agree with your statements. Everyone says the owners worked all their life to achieve all this mass amount of money, but the players AREN'T allowed to do the samething? The players are greedy people but why cant the owners accept losing millions of dollars every year. They should stop being so greedy right and just take the loss for the game of hockey. Millions isnt THAT big of a deal to them. Why arent the PLAYERS allowed to try and get the best deal available to THEM as well?
No one said they weren't allowed to do that. What people are saying is the best deal they are going to get will be one negotiated NOW. Not next September when you can bet there will be issues of impasse heading to the courts where things can be a toss up.

tantalum is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:24 PM
  #87
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
There is a board-worth of well-though-out answers to that questions, just peruse the threads here.

You may not agree with them, but they exist, en masse.
I realize that, but I don't want people opinion on why they won't accept a cap, I want the players reasons, just like the owners have their reason for wanting a cap...

417 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:24 PM
  #88
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
There is a board-worth of well-though-out answers to that questions, just peruse the threads here.

You may not agree with them, but they exist, en masse.
NOt from the players they don't. People have speculated and that's fine but the party so opposed to the cap has not provided an answer despite being asked numerous times.

tantalum is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:24 PM
  #89
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Both you and 417 provide a reasonable opposing view to mine.

Trust me, I'm not putting the players on a pedestal for playing for a fraction of their normal salaries this year. Just pointing out that it's not as simple as some make it seem. Sure, they could accept the league's proposal and immediately make much more $$$. But that ignores the bigger picture.
But the players playing in Europe have no other option (other than not to play at all). If replacement players were in the NHL right now....and the real NHLers were offered jobs making their normal NHL salary but had to cross the line...and instead went to Europe to play for much less....then your point on principle would have more meat

Mothra is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:24 PM
  #90
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum
umm. I agree with you. Think you replied to the wrong post.
Yep, I did. My bad.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:27 PM
  #91
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
Trottier I completely agree with your statements. Everyone says the owners worked all their life to achieve all this mass amount of money, but the players AREN'T allowed to do the samething? The players are greedy people but why cant the owners accept losing millions of dollars every year. They should stop being so greedy right and just take the loss for the game of hockey. Millions isnt THAT big of a deal to them. Why arent the PLAYERS allowed to try and get the best deal available to THEM as well?
That's insane. Who cares how much money you got. Why is it ok for a guy to lose millions a year? Basically an owner should lose millions a year so the players can sustain the cirrent system. BS

 
Old
01-21-2005, 02:29 PM
  #92
PanthersRule96
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 6,030
vCash: 500
I think all this negative publicity is BS. How would it be possible that a deal was almost signed, Coyotes players were told to be ready and they ordered equipment as did Anaheim without something going on. ONe thing may have leaked out. All this doom and gloom, I don't believe any of it. I think btoh sides are going to go back now and try to "save face" and find the best way they can to do this so they can have a season.

Yesterday, the PA and the NHL said the meetings had good talks, but they still had the differences. Saskin said the communication lines were open. Today, it sounds as if there is no hope. IF it was so bad, this news would've come out right after the meeting yesterday. I think right now, both sides are looking over a deal that could get something done and a public way to save themselves as what are the players gonna think when they've lost all their earnings so far for a lost cause in accepting a salary cap. IT makes no sense and I don't buy a single thing of it. NHL won't go into uncharted waters and cancel a whole season. WIth baseball, it didn't recover and that wasn't a full season. IF hockey went through a whole year, it would get destroyed.

Keep in mind, "it's always dark before dawn" as Eklund said. I believe this too. They are not THAT stupid as to cancel the season. Both sides are trying to save themselves now and looking for the best way to do it. IF Linden can get a salary cap or system called something else, some term that is made up that hides the cap name, there will be hockey in the next 3 weeks IMO.

PanthersRule96 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:33 PM
  #93
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum
NOt from the players they don't. People have speculated and that's fine but the party so opposed to the cap has not provided an answer despite being asked numerous times.
Fair enough.

I would add that question to the list of two other major points that remain unanswered (at least to this observer):

1) Why has Bettman kept publicly saying that the league is not tied to a hardcap, yet by all accounts that is the sticking point here?

2) Why can't the two sides find mutually acceptable, third-party formula for auditing league revenue?


Trottier is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:33 PM
  #94
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier

What you are doing is telling someone how much money they should make (settle for). You're right to do so, totally, but it's anathema to those of us who believe in freedom, including the right to pursue one's ultimate earning power. Just curious how you would react if someone told you "you are stupid for not settling for minimum wage." Of course, players are making an infinite amount more than that, and much more than anyone here is making. But that is not the point. Economic freedom - the right to earn and bargain for one's pay - applies to EVERYONE, regardless of economic class. Just because you are wealthy does not mean you give up that right. (And PS, no one here presumes that "bargaining for it", guarantees that you will get it. But the union has every right to do so, despite the class-envy critics who call them stupid.)
Slow down. I'm not saying the players don't have economic freedom, nor am I particularly envious of their "class" (though let's face it, we'd all like to be NHL players, wouldn't we?).
However, it's certainly fair game to comment on how one chooses to exercise their economic freedom. If a kid with a Harvard MBA chooses to serve fries at McDonald's, I think we'd all say he's making a poor decision. If a woman with a PhD in astrophysics from MIT chooses to fold t-shirts at The Gap for a living, who would say she's acting intelligently. And if an elite professional athlete chooses to make $150K playing on another continent rather than $1.3 million at home, it should be obvious to everyone he's not making an intelligent decision.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:35 PM
  #95
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregStack
He wasn't talking about being insulted salary wise.


Maybe the idiotic hard line approach to negotiating is what he's talking about.
Well since it is a proven fact that the players got the league into these straights then they should just man up and tyake the cap. you PA cronies just make me laugh with the stupidity of your posts. go live in the real world for a while and see how insulted you would be with $1.3 million dollar salary. The problem you don't seem to understand is that if a business owner is losing money he closes the business or lays off his workers but these players expect that if pitts buff and edm go broke who cares we got our money. What kind of msg does that send to the ownership side.


It is a proven fact if the owners are making money the league is healthy and the money will continue to flow to the players. What i don't understand is why the players don't negotiate a deal that is a hard cap with a percentage of revenue going to them, that way if the league starts making more money then they get their piece of the pie.

Chayos is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:35 PM
  #96
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,855
vCash: 500
Why do people even pick sides anymore? Neither one is trying to find a solution and get hockey back on the ice. There is a solution/middle ground to be found but each side wants it their way like 5 year olds. This sucks.

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:37 PM
  #97
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
Why arent the PLAYERS allowed to try and get the best deal available to THEM as well?
The players are allowed to get the best deal available to them. That's what the collective-bargaining process is all about. That's what is happening right now.
The problem, as I see it, is that the NHLPA has vastly misjudged where that "best deal" lies. They've greatly underestimated the owners' resolve and everyone is paying for that mistake.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:39 PM
  #98
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Fair enough.

I would add that question to the list of two other major points that remain unanswered (at least to this observer):

1) Why has Bettman kept publicly saying that the league is not tied to a hardcap, yet by all accounts that is the sticking point here?

2) Why can't the two sides find mutually acceptable, third-party formula for auditing league revenue?

The sticking point is not really hard cap it's the discussion of linkage. The league may be amenable to negotiating that hard cap down to a soft one or one with some exceptions or a multitude of other varieties that has some sort of trigger that reflects the health of the league. But in order to do so the players have to accept that linkage and get into that discussion of what constitutes revenues (or the owners have to completely forget about the
linkage).

Of the second point...ask the NHLPA. The owners WANT to have that discussion. The players refuse to do so and keep repeating the owners are liars, hide revenues etc. There is only side that doesn't believe that can be done despite evidence to the contrary (NFL, NBA)...and it's the players.

tantalum is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:39 PM
  #99
misterjaggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Duke City
Country: United States
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
I will tell you why the players wont accept a cap. And you can either find it stupid or sensible. But there is absolutely NO trust between the players and owners, NONE at all. If a salary cap was implemented i believe the players think the owners will find ways to screw the players over big time just like they used to do back in the very old days, maybe not exactly the same cause its a new period of time but you know what im getting at. If you look at past NHL owners and management, you know there have been many crooks among them, and I think the players are scared to tie revenues and salaries because they dont trust the owners will be fair at all with their numbers. And I mean if you look at past history with the Kings old owner and the Leafs old owner and there was JUST a recent report on how Jeremey Jacobs tried to scam and save some money but in the end got caught and had to end up paying it. I mean would you really put your salaries in in complete control of these guys? If you step back and take a look at it I can see the players point of view and I can see the owners point of view as well. But since everyone is knocking the players a lot more people dont take the time to look at it from their perspective. You can still disagree with the players all you want, but can you honestly not even just a little bit see their point?
The NHLPA can afford to hire the finest accountants and lawyers in the world to ensure that the next CBA's language protects the players' interests.

misterjaggers is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:40 PM
  #100
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Slow down. I'm not saying the players don't have economic freedom, nor am I particularly envious of their "class" (though let's face it, we'd all like to be NHL players, wouldn't we?).
However, it's certainly fair game to comment on how one chooses to exercise their economic freedom. If a kid with a Harvard MBA chooses to serve fries at McDonald's, I think we'd all say he's making a poor decision. If a woman with a PhD in astrophysics from MIT chooses to fold t-shirts at The Gap for a living, who would say she's acting intelligently. And if an elite professional athlete chooses to make $150K playing on another continent rather than $1.3 million at home, it should be obvious to everyone he's not making an intelligent decision.
OK, consensus reached!

I fully understand that your opinion, or anyone else's opinion on the "intelligence" of either side in this matter, is one to which we are entitled.

Where I take offense is with some who simply declare that the players should "take it or leave it". Indeed, the players may be leading themselves into a deep hole here, only time will tell. But there is a difference between believing that they are misguided (and stating as much here, as you and other have done), and smugly demanding that "they immediately accept this offer!" and bow to management's demands. (And, I'm sure you've read a lot of those type of posts here; I have.)

The players have every right not to, even if that decision is wrong.

Trottier is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 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.