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, 02:33 AM
  #26
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
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
When the NHL gets a billion dollar TV contract, we can talk about revenue sharing. Until then, the league needs to get healthy. A cap is the way to do this.

waffledave is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:38 AM
  #27
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
He is referring to payroll disparity in any context.
I don't think you understood what I meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
if you believe this, there is plenty of ocean view property available in Banff for sale.
No wonder you are so blind. You refuse to beleive anything the owners have to say. There is no point debating if you're going to go all Trevor Linden on me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
allow teams to carry a 25m payroll, or less, if they choose.
If you believe this is what the players expect is going to happen, there is plenty of ocean view property available in Banff for sale. Even you can admit that the players fully expect salaries to keep climbing. In the long term, there will be no 25m payrolls because the average salary will be 2 million plus.

I'm going to bed. No replies from me till tommorow.

waffledave is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:46 AM
  #28
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ask your wife
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
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
Lets see,if there was no cap the Dodgers,Jets and few more with their own networks would care less about a tax and control the talent much in the same way the Yankees do in baseball.

I an NOT agains't revenue sharing but there still has to be a cap system to stop the retarded owners...

You asked!

next!!

Iggy-4-50 is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:47 AM
  #29
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Lets see,if there was no cap the Dodgers,Jets and few more with their own networks would care less about a tax and control the talent much in the same way the Yankees do in baseball.

I an NOT agains't revenue sharing but there still has to be a cap system to stop the retarded owners...

You asked!

next!!
baseball doesnt have a cap.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:49 AM
  #30
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ask your wife
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
baseball doesnt have a cap.

dr
Is it too late for you? read my post...THAT WAS MY POINT!

Iggy-4-50 is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:54 AM
  #31
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Is it too late for you? read my post...THAT WAS MY POINT!
,maybe its late for you too ..

whats the first team in your post ? dodgers. dont they play baseball ?

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:03 AM
  #32
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ask your wife
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
,maybe its late for you too ..

whats the first team in your post ? dodgers. dont they play baseball ?

dr
Doh!! I'm not tired just drunk fact is, if you had any braincells working this late you would have realized i meant the Raiders

Iggy-4-50 is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:07 AM
  #33
Wetcoaster
Registered User
 
Wetcoaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 53,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with a cap?
See post #30 on this thread for a detailed explanation of the arguments against salary caps:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=125120&page=2

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:13 AM
  #34
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ask your wife
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
See post #30 on this thread for a detailed explanation of the arguments against salary caps:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=125120&page=2
I got as far as the If you do not like long posts - DO NOT READ FURTHER!!!! part and quit

Fact is, a cap is needed in a starving NHL or teams will fold...take your pick.

Iggy-4-50 is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:20 AM
  #35
Wetcoaster
Registered User
 
Wetcoaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 53,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
I got as far as the If you do not like long posts - DO NOT READ FURTHER!!!! part and quit

Fact is, a cap is needed in a starving NHL or teams will fold...take your pick.
I set out why you are wrong - if you can be bothered to read and learn - why post?

Unless all you are interested in doing is trolling and that is prohibited on these boards.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:54 AM
  #36
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ask your wife
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
I set out why you are wrong - if you can be bothered to read and learn - why post?

Unless all you are interested in doing is trolling and that is prohibited on these boards.
Ok,i relented and read it...nice novel but i still feel the same...IMO a cap and revenue sharing is needed in the NHL at it's current state (30 teams)

Fact: far too many teams lose money (including large market teams)
Fact: No balance (every year you can pick the regular season top teams)
Fact: No balance #2 (can allmost always pick who misses the playoffs)
Fact: 9 of 10 of the last 10 cup winners are from the top 10 payroll teams
Fact: after having season tickets for 15 years i finally had to give them up because i can't afford them anymore.my seats cost $33.50 in 87 but now there $110.00...i wish i made 300% more money but i don't!

I'm all for "the product" making good money but not at the expense of whats really important...the game itself.

And please don't call me a troll because i don't see your views...not cool!

Iggy-4-50 is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 10:26 AM
  #37
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Doh!! I'm not tired just drunk fact is, if you had any braincells working this late you would have realized i meant the Raiders
uh, how would i be able to make that connection ?

Dodgers v Raiders ?

there is nothing that even connects them.

you were drunk. lol.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 10:48 AM
  #38
Strazzobosco
Registered User
 
Strazzobosco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fairfax, VA
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with a cap?
A: you set the cap at 35M$ say because the income is only 2 billion, as declared by the owners for 7 years. After 7 years, inflation colsts at 4.5% yearly would eventually imply the players have lost about 35% if not more over the period of time! While owners now make 35% more (or at least declare that much more; keep in mind some of them still have fraud charges pending against them. They're not clean. Even GG declared bankruptcy 4 times, and yet still has enough to own the Habs and lose money.)

B: it implies the players must police their employers, and are responsible for their employer's financial problems. This would be ok only if the players get to have its representatives at or near the top, which they do not and never will. It be like you responsible for your neighbour's spending and losing his house because you mow his lawn. If you are such a partner, you want and need representation on how the money is spent. And the owners will never agree to that.

C: Noone, not even the owners themselves, trusts their numbers. The Levitt report was NOT an audit but a review. Not one owner would agree to an audit (for tax cheating purposes).

Strazzobosco is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:04 AM
  #39
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ask your wife
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
uh, how would i be able to make that connection ?

Dodgers v Raiders ?

there is nothing that even connects them.

you were drunk. lol.

dr
Big market west coast football team with a very rich owner,without a cap they would try to buy a superbowl.As for the Dodgers,if they didn't have the one of the cheapest owners in MLB they would be the wests version of the Yankee's.

But your right,i was very drunk and i have a spike in my head!!

Iggy-4-50 is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:22 AM
  #40
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
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.)
Their point of view is that by redistributing the player talent more evenly (with a cap), then those markets should be able to develop and draw additional fans/revenues in order to get at least to the cap minimum. And I have no doubt that markets that won't be able to sustain the minimum cap with the new provisions (more talent for their fans + some revenue sharing) will be moved to more suitable markets.

However, right now, there's no point to move a team as the lower revenue teams argue it's because of the system they can't draw more revenues. As well, with the dog eat dog system where more money = better players (at least more marketable players), if a team can be moved to a market that can buy better players, this will be done at the expense of the other small markets (who will lose more players) and again create a problem with moving franchises. The goal is to get 30 stable hockey markets and build popularity for the sport starting there. Making the headlines more often for financial difficulties and so on more often than for the game ain't going to help you increase popularity of the game.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:27 AM
  #41
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dumitru123
A: you set the cap at 35M$ say because the income is only 2 billion, as declared by the owners for 7 years. After 7 years, inflation colsts at 4.5% yearly would eventually imply the players have lost about 35% if not more over the period of time! While owners now make 35% more (or at least declare that much more; keep in mind some of them still have fraud charges pending against them. They're not clean. Even GG declared bankruptcy 4 times, and yet still has enough to own the Habs and lose money.)

B: it implies the players must police their employers, and are responsible for their employer's financial problems. This would be ok only if the players get to have its representatives at or near the top, which they do not and never will. It be like you responsible for your neighbour's spending and losing his house because you mow his lawn. If you are such a partner, you want and need representation on how the money is spent. And the owners will never agree to that.

C: Noone, not even the owners themselves, trusts their numbers. The Levitt report was NOT an audit but a review. Not one owner would agree to an audit (for tax cheating purposes).
A: Doesn't make sense, players are offered a set % of revenues. If the owners get more money (they have the smaller share), then the players receive even more money. If you're not good at finance, you shouldn't push figures around...

B: The employees in all industries are bear a part of responsibility in their employer's financial problems. Why should it be any different in the NHL? If your employers aren't making money, you will lose your job. Is that really what all employees want? The rest is nonsense, sorry.

C: Then why did the last NHL proposal included a full independant audit for all the teams? Certainly not because they don't agree with it. I think you're living in fiction land. Most things that get out of the NHLPA is propaganda and lies, check your facts before spouting off.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:30 AM
  #42
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSJTOM
guys guys guys.

if you feel that strongly just ignore the other person

click on name

add to ignore list

Yes

done.
Thank you, at least someone around here gets it!

Sotnos is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:49 AM
  #43
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,536
vCash: 450
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 ?

dr

Well DR it goes deeper than that. Take the Canes for example, they had a payroll of around 37 million dollars last year (in the payroll range of Bettmans proposal) and still claim to have lost 10 million dollars. So no matter what they are gonna lose money right? Unless they increase their revenues. History tells us Karmanos and Rutherford cant build and sustain a winning team, so where is that revenue gonna come from? Huge revenue sharing which is something the NHL doesn't want.

Motown Beatdown is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:23 PM
  #44
Lobstertainment
Registered User
 
Lobstertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Lobstertainment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
Thank you, at least someone around here gets it!
You're welcome...now where's my big sack of money?

Lobstertainment is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:50 PM
  #45
Onion Boy
Registered User
 
Onion Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Japan
Posts: 2,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
Surely others see this inconsistency.
Nope, seems pretty clear to me. A luxury tax would be supported by the weaker teams since they'd be the beneficiary, but the rich owners would never go for it because they'd be paying the tax. A hard cap, however, allows the owners who are making revenues upwards of 70 or 80 million dollars to pocket 40-50 million while the "poorer" owners would benefit by a league-wide reduction in salary.

Needless to say, a luxury tax, revenue-sharing system would be in the best interest of the small market owners, but the big boys would never go for it.

I can understand people not wanting to side with the players, but how can they sincerely defend supporting the owners?

Onion Boy is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:10 PM
  #46
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjb3599
Needless to say, a luxury tax, revenue-sharing system would be in the best interest of the small market owners, but the big boys would never go for it.

I can understand people not wanting to side with the players, but how can they sincerely defend supporting the owners?
How about supporting neither and supporting the most likely scenario to bring hockey back? (and to make sure hockey will prosper)

If the owners don't get a salary cap this time, they'll try again in 5 years, then in 5 years after, etc. What's the point for the players refusing it when in the end it's not an option to refuse it. Add to this the players are worse off with everyday going by regardless of the deal they finally sign. Which brings me to the conclusion that the reason why there's no hockey is because the players are seriously lacking foresight and are happy losing money.

There are plenty of other reasons too that lead to the same conclusion, but I think this resumes the point.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:30 PM
  #47
David
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,007
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.
dr
What kind of grade 2 logic is this???

a) If you don't want to give me some of your money even though you have more money than me and Chris Pronger doesn't want to give his money to Pierre Dagenais, what makes you think that anyone else would want to do it?

b) Because there is even a simpler solution that has already proven that it will work better.

'Their proposal' WILL make ALL the difference in the world by making the field more even. If the players were really serious about negotiating, why not accept a cap on the condition that there is also some kind of revenue sharing or something along those lines? Isn't this what is called negotiating?


On another note:

I have a sneaking suspiscion that you are either Linden himself or some very close to the union. Judging by some of your asinine comments on the other thread and how quickly it was closed down, I would say that you are indeed a player...and if my hunch is correct, then it's no wonder that there is no NHL hockey. I CANNOT believe the stupidity coming out of yours and players' mouths!


Last edited by David: 01-22-2005 at 02:38 PM.
David is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:36 PM
  #48
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
On another note:

I have a sneaking suspiscion that you are either Linden himself or some very close to the union. Judging by some of your asinine comments on the other thread and how quickly it was closed down, I would say that you are indeed a player...and if my hunch is correct, then it's no wonder that there is no NHL hockey. I CANNOT believe the stupidity coming out of your mouth!
damn i wish i was a player.

what thread are you referring to anyhow ?

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:40 PM
  #49
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
What kind of grade 2 logic is this???

a) If you don't want to give me some of your money even though you have more money than me and Chris Pronger doesn't want to give his money to Pierre Dagenais, what makes you think that anyone else would want to do it?
i think you missed the point. Daly's quote says they dont want a situation where one team can only afford a 25m payroll and another can afford an 80 or 90m payroll.

since the NHL's proposal forces all teams to be at least 34m in payroll, how has he addressed the issue of a team only affording a 25m payroll. logic would say with revenue sharing, but thats not part of their proposal, so the NHL proposal itself doesnt meet the test of Daly's concern.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:42 PM
  #50
David
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
damn i wish i was a player.

Believe me, by this time next year, ALL the 'FORMER' NHL players will be wishing that they were players!!!

David 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 02:02 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.