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.

Confusing Daly Quote

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2005, 12:00 AM
  #1
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Confusing Daly Quote

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=112108

" ... you don't want a situation where teams on the bottom can afford only a $25-million payroll and teams at the top can spend $80 million to $90 million on players."

a) if bottom teams can only afford 25m and the NHL is opposed to significant revenue sharing, how will their proposal help anything ?

b) if the goal is to not have teams with a payroll over 80m (or even 50m), why not work with the players to construct a tax that makes it so that it can never happen.

Surely others see this inconsistency.

i feel that if this statement were true and not just cliche to fuel ignorance, then there offer doesnt resolve it and the players offer does at least offer a model to address it. the owners model EXASPERATES the problem since each team must spend over 34m. didint he just say some teams can only afford 25m ? which teams are those by the way ?

i know the players are being stubborn, but the owners are being bullies and for no good reason other than they have decided it is better to play hangmans bluff.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:22 AM
  #2
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
a) if bottom teams can only afford 25m and the NHL is opposed to significant revenue sharing, how will their proposal help anything ?
I've heard them say that their proposal will create a league where the teams can afford more than 25m. (Personally, I don't see how it would help the teams that are really struggling.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
b) if the goal is to not have teams with a payroll over 80m (or even 50m), why not work with the players to construct a tax that makes it so that it can never happen.
How do you know they haven't? Last I heard when stiff taxes were discussed, the NHLPA viewed them as tantamount to a cap and unacceptable.

I would imagine there have been many ideas discussed that we'll never hear about. Both sides have been playing the media game since the start. I wouldn't make any assumptions about what's been offered and what hasn't from either side.

ceber is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:26 AM
  #3
Lobstertainment
Registered User
 
Lobstertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,256
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Lobstertainment
I think the basic idea is the cap makes it so those 25 million dollar teams can compete

then they start winning games

more and more fans come to see them because they are winning.

more fans = more money

now they can afford to pay 10 million more in team salary.

the real answer is probably a lot more complicated.

Lobstertainment is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:31 AM
  #4
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Bill Daly makes great points and is not inconsistent with that he says. You are too much pro-player.

Also I hate Al Strachan I saw him today and he looks more and more like hes gonna die sooner then later, he makes terrible comments that are not nesscary in this process. The players made a ridiculous proposal that would not get us anywhere.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:32 AM
  #5
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
Bill Daly makes great points and is not inconsistent with that he says. You are too much pro-player.

Also I hate Al Strachan I saw him today and he looks more and more like hes gonna die sooner then later, he makes terrible comments that are not nesscary in this process. The players made a ridiculous proposal that would not get us anywhere.
please dont respond to my posts. i am not interested in your opinion.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:44 AM
  #6
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
please dont respond to my posts. i am not interested in your opinion.

dr
I can reply to whoever I want to okay son. If you have a problem with me I have PM send it there and you live in Calgary we can discuss this.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:57 AM
  #7
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=112108

" ... you don't want a situation where teams on the bottom can afford only a $25-million payroll and teams at the top can spend $80 million to $90 million on players."

a) if bottom teams can only afford 25m and the NHL is opposed to significant revenue sharing, how will their proposal help anything ?

b) if the goal is to not have teams with a payroll over 80m (or even 50m), why not work with the players to construct a tax that makes it so that it can never happen.

Surely others see this inconsistency.

i feel that if this statement were true and not just cliche to fuel ignorance, then there offer doesnt resolve it and the players offer does at least offer a model to address it. the owners model EXASPERATES the problem since each team must spend over 34m. didint he just say some teams can only afford 25m ? which teams are those by the way ?

i know the players are being stubborn, but the owners are being bullies and for no good reason other than they have decided it is better to play hangmans bluff.

dr
It is no more self contradictory than the term "cost certainty" applied to a cap. The league did a great job of marketing its proposal to the fans, and that statement agrees well with that strategy.

Isn't it amazing how much power salesmen and marketers have in todays world?

shveik is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:04 AM
  #8
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
please dont respond to my posts. i am not interested in your opinion.

dr
i second DR's request on my behalf should i make any further posts.

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:12 AM
  #9
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
I secone I can reply wherever I feel. Free country baby I can do what I want. If DR has a problem he lives in Calgary like I said and so do I, just PM dog and we can settle any problems you have.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:14 AM
  #10
Lady Rhian
St. McQuaid he aint
 
Lady Rhian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lakes Region, NH
Posts: 22,659
vCash: 500
Went to a hockey thread, and a fight broke out.

Relax, gentlemen. We're all stressed out this winter without our hockey.

Lady Rhian is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:39 AM
  #11
Lobstertainment
Registered User
 
Lobstertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,256
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Lobstertainment
guys guys guys.

if you feel that strongly just ignore the other person

click on name

add to ignore list

Yes

done.

Lobstertainment is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:44 AM
  #12
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
sigh .. another wasted thread hijacked by an extremist.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:47 AM
  #13
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,402
vCash: 500
Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with a cap?

waffledave is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:51 AM
  #14
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with a cap?
its illegal if the labour party wont agree to it in a CBA.

wrong thread though.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:55 AM
  #15
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
its illegal if the labour party wont agree to it in a CBA.

wrong thread though.

dr
This doesn't really answer the question, but nice try.

Are you an NHL player? Sure sound like one.

"What's wrong with a cap?"

"...Next question!"

waffledave is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:58 AM
  #16
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
This doesn't really answer the question, but nice try.

Are you an NHL player? Sure sound like one.

"What's wrong with a cap?"

"...Next question!"
why does it matter whats wrong with a cap ?

the fact is one party doesnt want one and the only way to resolve this is to negotiate. since its the other party who wants to make the fundemental change, the onus is on them to find a solution without killing the golden goose.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:00 AM
  #17
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
why does it matter whats wrong with a cap ?

the fact is one party doesnt want one and the only way to resolve this is to negotiate. since its the other party who wants to make the fundemental change, the onus is on them to find a solution without killing the golden goose.

dr
It matters because there is no use arguing a side that has no merit.

waffledave is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:03 AM
  #18
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
It matters because there is no use arguing a side that has no merit.
ok, but the fact is they are. call them stupid, stuborn or both.

doesnt change the fact that there is no negotiated deal.

back to the thread topic if you dont mind. what do you make of Daly's quotes.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:12 AM
  #19
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,402
vCash: 500
The point he is trying to make is that a salary cap will help teams be more competitive. In the short terms teams will suffer. In the long term, more competitive teams means that people in Carolina will become fans again when they see that their team actually has a shot.

I think that the players and player supporters need to stop being so nearsighted. This is all about long term gain. What will the player's proposals do in the long term? Absolutely nothing. Daly's quotes make perfect sense if you realize the context he says them in (ie long term gains).

waffledave is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:16 AM
  #20
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
The point he is trying to make is that a salary cap will help teams be more competitive. In the short terms teams will suffer. In the long term, more competitive teams means that people in Carolina will become fans again when they see that their team actually has a shot.

I think that the players and player supporters need to stop being so nearsighted. This is all about long term gain. What will the player's proposals do in the long term? Absolutely nothing. Daly's quotes make perfect sense if you realize the context he says them in (ie long term gains).
i dont think so... he is directly referring to payroll disparity. but when compared to the offers on the table, only the players have proposed a model that will acheive that solution.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:21 AM
  #21
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
i dont think so... he is directly referring to payroll disparity. but when compared to the offers on the table, only the players have proposed a model that will acheive that solution.

dr
Like I said, if you take his quote out of context then yes he is reffering to payroll disparity. However, the owners have been clear in stating that they want to eliminate competitive imbalance. So yeah, you need to take that into account when you read quotes. It's not like he's going to explain the stance of the owners in every interview. It's up to the writer to provide the information to make it clear.

The owner's proposal included a paycut as well, did it not? What would the player's proposal do that the owner's proposal would not?

waffledave is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:29 AM
  #22
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
i dont think so... he is directly referring to payroll disparity. but when compared to the offers on the table, only the players have proposed a model that will acheive that solution.

dr
Maybe i missed something but the only proposal the players have made STILL will make the league lose huge $$$ in the long run.

And a fair cap WILL make the league more competative in the long run!

NHL today = Formala 1 racing series (great if your a ferrari fan)
NHL w/cap = NFL (best professional league in the world)

nuff said.

Iggy-4-50 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:29 AM
  #23
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
Like I said, if you take his quote out of context then yes he is reffering to payroll disparity.
He is referring to payroll disparity in any context.


Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
However, the owners have been clear in stating that they want to eliminate competitive imbalance.
if you believe this, there is plenty of ocean view property available in Banff for sale.


Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
What would the player's proposal do that the owner's proposal would not?
allow teams to carry a 25m payroll, or less, if they choose.

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:30 AM
  #24
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
sigh .. another wasted thread hijacked by an extremist.

dr
with all due respect you are th eone that started it.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:30 AM
  #25
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
NHL w/cap = NFL (best professional league in the world)
say this is true. what makes you think the NHL CAP will have have the same results as the NFL CAP without the NFL REVENUE SHARING.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud 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 11:12 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.