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.

So is everyone clear its about a cap now!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2005, 09:29 AM
  #1
RLC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
So is everyone clear its about a cap now!

I have read thousands of posts about this. This is my take on it

If you distil everything down to the basic issue is has to be this.
The owners cant get arround the colussion thing. They cant just reset saleries in acordance to true revenues. They cant get together , look at the books and readjust the payrole. When the players say " let the market decide" but the market is not allowed to decide and the players know this. The players want to go for the highest bidder, forcing a shark like feeding frenze for their services, but the sharks are not allowed to stop hunting this fish in favour of another type. No wonder the players don't want to stop the feeding frenze ever. It is the most inflasionary system the could exsist. Since the bigger sharks can afford more they will out bid eachother. AS for the smaller sharks " well if those teams can't afford to out bid anybody" let them starve, it's not a player problem I am not an owner or an invester.

This is what the players call a fair system. Ferthermore the players want input on rules and how the games is put together. If your an invester then you get to vote, if your the worker you don,t. The players don't want to be investers, no partnership. It's their choice and they continue to make the same choice.

On garenteed contracts, again the player wants to be paid on the basis of past proformance ( if i score 50 goals I am worth a 50 goal salerie) so why does the garentee not go both ways. THe player refuses to garentee his 50 goal production.
( nice deal if you can get it )

Under the Anti-trust laws the owners have no choice, either fold the league and start all over again or put in a salerie cap. Once each team has contracted for 20 basic players and his buget is spent it's not colussion anymore if he has not money for Jagr at 10 mill per year. Jagr will still go for the highest bidder but the bids will be a lot lower.

And this is what the top 40 or so players that I believe are actually running the NHLPA don't want. They are willing to always throw under the bus the rookies, in favour of a best deal for them.

Unlimited inflasion is what these guys want. "we did not force owners to over bid"
but with the anti-trust law in effect they did and continue the hide behind it.

Hockey needs to be fixed. Players need to become investers in their sport. Growing the business is the only way out for everyone. Refusing to look at the books is no longer acceptable. " I don't care if your loseing money, I don't want you to prove your case that your loseing money, I want you to find more Billionaires that are willing to lose money" Thats the NHLPA way out of this impass.

If the NHL puts forward a new offer ( yes with a cap ) Goodenow and the top 40 will never let the rank and file vote on it. is this not a hyjacking of the union by a few. This does not sound very democratic to me. It puts into question the true motive of the top 40.

RLC is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 10:05 AM
  #2
robcav
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Its more about a huge money grab by the owners.

robcav is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 10:19 AM
  #3
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLC
I have read thousands of posts about this. This is my take on it

If you distil everything down to the basic issue is has to be this.
The owners cant get arround the colussion thing. They cant just reset saleries in acordance to true revenues. They cant get together , look at the books and readjust the payrole. When the players say " let the market decide" but the market is not allowed to decide and the players know this. The players want to go for the highest bidder, forcing a shark like feeding frenze for their services, but the sharks are not allowed to stop hunting this fish in favour of another type. No wonder the players don't want to stop the feeding frenze ever. It is the most inflasionary system the could exsist. Since the bigger sharks can afford more they will out bid eachother. AS for the smaller sharks " well if those teams can't afford to out bid anybody" let them starve, it's not a player problem I am not an owner or an invester.

This is what the players call a fair system. Ferthermore the players want input on rules and how the games is put together. If your an invester then you get to vote, if your the worker you don,t. The players don't want to be investers, no partnership. It's their choice and they continue to make the same choice.

On garenteed contracts, again the player wants to be paid on the basis of past proformance ( if i score 50 goals I am worth a 50 goal salerie) so why does the garentee not go both ways. THe player refuses to garentee his 50 goal production.
( nice deal if you can get it )

Under the Anti-trust laws the owners have no choice, either fold the league and start all over again or put in a salerie cap. Once each team has contracted for 20 basic players and his buget is spent it's not colussion anymore if he has not money for Jagr at 10 mill per year. Jagr will still go for the highest bidder but the bids will be a lot lower.

And this is what the top 40 or so players that I believe are actually running the NHLPA don't want. They are willing to always throw under the bus the rookies, in favour of a best deal for them.

Unlimited inflasion is what these guys want. "we did not force owners to over bid"
but with the anti-trust law in effect they did and continue the hide behind it.

Hockey needs to be fixed. Players need to become investers in their sport. Growing the business is the only way out for everyone. Refusing to look at the books is no longer acceptable. " I don't care if your loseing money, I don't want you to prove your case that your loseing money, I want you to find more Billionaires that are willing to lose money" Thats the NHLPA way out of this impass.

If the NHL puts forward a new offer ( yes with a cap ) Goodenow and the top 40 will never let the rank and file vote on it. is this not a hyjacking of the union by a few. This does not sound very democratic to me. It puts into question the true motive of the top 40.
Yet another well thought out post.


If the NHL had major TV revenue I might think otherwise. Owners can't hide that much money in the NHL. Each team sells so many tickets at set prices and have luxury boxes that bring in only so much. With little to no TV revenue I would like to see pro player posters explain to me where the hidden cash cow is. Merchandise, advertising, coroporarte sponsorship, parking and concessions only bring in enough money to maintain the buildings they play in.

You have hit the nail dead on.

eye is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:10 AM
  #4
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLC
I have read thousands of posts about this. This is my take on it

If you distil everything down to the basic issue is has to be this.
The owners cant get arround the colussion thing. They cant just reset saleries in acordance to true revenues. They cant get together , look at the books and readjust the payrole. When the players say " let the market decide" but the market is not allowed to decide and the players know this. The players want to go for the highest bidder, forcing a shark like feeding frenze for their services, but the sharks are not allowed to stop hunting this fish in favour of another type. No wonder the players don't want to stop the feeding frenze ever. It is the most inflasionary system the could exsist. Since the bigger sharks can afford more they will out bid eachother. AS for the smaller sharks " well if those teams can't afford to out bid anybody" let them starve, it's not a player problem I am not an owner or an invester.

This is what the players call a fair system. Ferthermore the players want input on rules and how the games is put together. If your an invester then you get to vote, if your the worker you don,t. The players don't want to be investers, no partnership. It's their choice and they continue to make the same choice.

On garenteed contracts, again the player wants to be paid on the basis of past proformance ( if i score 50 goals I am worth a 50 goal salerie) so why does the garentee not go both ways. THe player refuses to garentee his 50 goal production.
( nice deal if you can get it )

Under the Anti-trust laws the owners have no choice, either fold the league and start all over again or put in a salerie cap. Once each team has contracted for 20 basic players and his buget is spent it's not colussion anymore if he has not money for Jagr at 10 mill per year. Jagr will still go for the highest bidder but the bids will be a lot lower.

And this is what the top 40 or so players that I believe are actually running the NHLPA don't want. They are willing to always throw under the bus the rookies, in favour of a best deal for them.

Unlimited inflasion is what these guys want. "we did not force owners to over bid"
but with the anti-trust law in effect they did and continue the hide behind it.

Hockey needs to be fixed. Players need to become investers in their sport. Growing the business is the only way out for everyone. Refusing to look at the books is no longer acceptable. " I don't care if your loseing money, I don't want you to prove your case that your loseing money, I want you to find more Billionaires that are willing to lose money" Thats the NHLPA way out of this impass.

If the NHL puts forward a new offer ( yes with a cap ) Goodenow and the top 40 will never let the rank and file vote on it. is this not a hyjacking of the union by a few. This does not sound very democratic to me. It puts into question the true motive of the top 40.
When only 8 of 30 owners have to vote yes for Bettman to keep the lockout going, that is not very democratic either is it? Bottom line is those 40 players bring in the most money for the PA and they have the most to lose under an NHL-proposed system. I mean in the last NHL proposal those guys are losing what 35-40% of their salaries, meanwhile the rookie or 4th liner isn't losing anything. If I were one of the top guys I wouldn't care about the bottom guys either. Not to mention, half those bottom guys are only in the league as a negative result of expansion.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:11 AM
  #5
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,689
vCash: 500
Good post. It's hard to argue with the truth.

well done


s7ark is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:14 AM
  #6
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
When only 8 of 30 owners have to vote yes for Bettman to keep the lockout going, that is not very democratic either is it?
The owners collectively voted that power to Bettman. I ain't seen no votes from the NHLPA members saying only 40 players have to vote "no" to reject an offer...

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:42 AM
  #7
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
It's funny to see that people use term like ''Well thought'' when they agree with what it has been said.

People are jumping the gun over the players because they think more than 50% of the players would say yes on a secret vote.

HOW ABOUT THE NHLPA putting a VICIOUS LUXURY with
1$ for 1$ over 38M$
1,50$ for 1$ over 45$
& 2$ for 1$ over 53M$

That means a team with a 55M$ payroll can do it if he wants to & he will pay

7M$ tax for being over 38M$ to 45$
12M$ tax for being over 45 to 53M$
4M$ tax for being over 53$

that means he would pay 23,000,000$ with his payroll. & this would be into revenu sharing !!!

Now on a secret vote where Gary Bettman wouldn't have a word to say aside telling the deal of the PA. Do you think it would be reject ? I don't think so ! Why ? because the CAP ONLY approach is not approve by every owner. Some are exactly like Linden in the PA who understands the owner's need help but they can't fix everything for them & let them not having a partnership between each other.

This would cut it on a secret ballot with the owners.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:44 AM
  #8
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
It's funny to see that people use term like ''Well thought'' when they agree with what it has been said.

People are jumping the gun over the players because they think more than 50% of the players would say yes on a secret vote.

HOW ABOUT THE NHLPA putting a VICIOUS LUXURY with
1$ for 1$ over 38M$
1,50$ for 1$ over 45$
& 2$ for 1$ over 53M$

That means a team with a 55M$ payroll can do it if he wants to & he will pay

7M$ tax for being over 38M$ to 45$
12M$ tax for being over 45 to 53M$
4M$ tax for being over 53$

that means he would pay 23,000,000$ with his payroll. & this would be into revenu sharing !!!
The NHLPA already said that they feel a stiff luxury tax (such as the one you propose) is nothing else than a concealed salary cap and that they don't want any part of it...

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:44 AM
  #9
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
When only 8 of 30 owners have to vote yes for Bettman to keep the lockout going, that is not very democratic either is it? Bottom line is those 40 players bring in the most money for the PA and they have the most to lose under an NHL-proposed system. I mean in the last NHL proposal those guys are losing what 35-40% of their salaries, meanwhile the rookie or 4th liner isn't losing anything. If I were one of the top guys I wouldn't care about the bottom guys either. Not to mention, half those bottom guys are only in the league as a negative result of expansion.
You are aware that a union's responsibility is to look after the majority of its membership? You are aware that the NHL plan is probably the most fair imaginable. Consider the numbers for a minute.

349 players, earning < $800K, will see 0% reduction. This is around 44% of the association membership.

191 players, earning $800K to $1.499M, will see 15% reduction. This is around 24% of the association membership.

58 players, earning $1.5M to $1.99M, will see 20% reduction. This is around 7% of the association membership.

133 players, earning $2.0M to $3.99M, will see 24% reduction. This is around 16% of the association membership.

24 players, earning $4.0M to $4.99M, will see 30% reduction. This is around 3% of the association membership.

41 players, earning > $5.0M, will see 35% reduction. This is around 5% of the association membership.

So as we can see, 92% of the association is being pushed under the bus so the top 8% can continue to make rediculous salaries. And you really believe that the NHLPA has a leg to stand on morally or ethically? If this were a true union the majority of the players would be looked after, not the top 8%. The fact that the PA even fails to acknowledge this is mind numbing. I can't believe that anyone with a brain would consider arguing that the PA is doing the right thing, for their membership or for their game. Then again, anyone with a brain in their head would look at what they were being paid in the NHL and what their earning potential was elsewhere and be scrambling to sign on the dotted line. I hope the players enjoy their time playing in Europe for a fraction of what they made in the NHL.


Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:49 AM
  #10
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
It's funny to see that people use term like ''Well thought'' when they agree with what it has been said.

People are jumping the gun over the players because they think more than 50% of the players would say yes on a secret vote.

HOW ABOUT THE NHLPA putting a VICIOUS LUXURY with
1$ for 1$ over 38M$
1,50$ for 1$ over 45$
& 2$ for 1$ over 53M$

That means a team with a 55M$ payroll can do it if he wants to & he will pay

7M$ tax for being over 38M$ to 45$
12M$ tax for being over 45 to 53M$
4M$ tax for being over 53$

that means he would pay 23,000,000$ with his payroll. & this would be into revenu sharing !!!

Now on a secret vote where Gary Bettman wouldn't have a word to say aside telling the deal of the PA. Do you think it would be reject ? I don't think so ! Why ? because the CAP ONLY approach is not approve by every owner. Some are exactly like Linden in the PA who understands the owner's need help but they can't fix everything for them & let them not having a partnership between each other.

This would cut it on a secret ballot with the owners.
The problem with your "well thought out plan" is that it is not well thought out and does not meen the primary desire of the NHL, and that is a linkage to revenues. To add to that, it an inflationary system that would lead back to the same problem the teams face now. Shifting money around is not a solution. You can't rob Peter to pay back Paul. It doesn't work and it only leads to greater hardship down the road. If you can come up with a way to link that concept into the revenues of the league, then you are starting to find a solution that will work. Until then you aren't doing anything that works for any of the owners and only plays right back into the hands of those who can collude to inflate salaries.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:55 AM
  #11
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
The NHLPA already said that they feel a stiff luxury tax (such as the one you propose) is nothing else than a concealed salary cap and that they don't want any part of it...
A lot has been said on both parts. What is the truth & what's not, I don't know.

But at this point I think the middle ground is a stiff luxury. Maybe not as stiff as I just proposed but a stiff one.

People misunderstand the luxury tax because it's only compared to the MLB which is not the ONLY concept of a luxury tax.

We'll see. Yesterday was the 1st time I thought that I don't think there will be a season.

I could be wrong but I just can't understand the extremism that most poster show like ''players should go to hell, stick it to the owners'' etc.....

Are we in that kind of world where dictatorship should prevail over common sense & compromise ?

Well I'm not concern over that state of the NHL right now , i'm more concern over the state of humanity.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:10 PM
  #12
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
You are aware that a union's responsibility is to look after the majority of its membership? You are aware that the NHL plan is probably the most fair imaginable. Consider the numbers for a minute.

349 players, earning < $800K, will see 0% reduction. This is around 44% of the association membership.

191 players, earning $800K to $1.499M, will see 15% reduction. This is around 24% of the association membership.

58 players, earning $1.5M to $1.99M, will see 20% reduction. This is around 7% of the association membership.

133 players, earning $2.0M to $3.99M, will see 24% reduction. This is around 16% of the association membership.

24 players, earning $4.0M to $4.99M, will see 30% reduction. This is around 3% of the association membership.

41 players, earning > $5.0M, will see 35% reduction. This is around 5% of the association membership.

So as we can see, 92% of the association is being pushed under the bus so the top 8% can continue to make rediculous salaries. And you really believe that the NHLPA has a leg to stand on morally or ethically? If this were a true union the majority of the players would be looked after, not the top 8%. The fact that the PA even fails to acknowledge this is mind numbing. I can't believe that anyone with a brain would consider arguing that the PA is doing the right thing, for their membership or for their game. Then again, anyone with a brain in their head would look at what they were being paid in the NHL and what their earning potential was elsewhere and be scrambling to sign on the dotted line. I hope the players enjoy their time playing in Europe for a fraction of what they made in the NHL.

So, if I'm in the NHLPA and I make $1.8 million I'm supposed to want to accept the NHL deal because I'd only lose 20% of my salary instead of 24%? Doesn't make any sense. Say what you want, but the bottom 92% is not better off under a system that would leave them moderately more cash this (partial) season but would wipe out arbitration and horribly reduce qualifying offers. The NHL offers does absoultely nothing to "look after" the majority of the NHLPA. Nice try.

CGG is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:13 PM
  #13
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Yet another well thought out post.


If the NHL had major TV revenue I might think otherwise. Owners can't hide that much money in the NHL. Each team sells so many tickets at set prices and have luxury boxes that bring in only so much. With little to no TV revenue I would like to see pro player posters explain to me where the hidden cash cow is. Merchandise, advertising, coroporarte sponsorship, parking and concessions only bring in enough money to maintain the buildings they play in.

You have hit the nail dead on.
Owners can't hide that much money in the NHL? Wow. I guess average revenues of $72 million isn't that much. That gives them plenty of opportunity to hide revenue in exactly the things you described -- luxury boxes, tv, corporate sponsorship, advertising, etc. etc. etc.


Last edited by CGG: 01-22-2005 at 12:19 PM.
CGG is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:30 PM
  #14
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
So, if I'm in the NHLPA and I make $1.8 million I'm supposed to want to accept the NHL deal because I'd only lose 20% of my salary instead of 24%? Doesn't make any sense. Say what you want, but the bottom 92% is not better off under a system that would leave them moderately more cash this (partial) season but would wipe out arbitration and horribly reduce qualifying offers. The NHL offers does absoultely nothing to "look after" the majority of the NHLPA. Nice try.
Well, which would you prefer? 76% of your salary, or 0% of your salary. Come on, think quick.

Arbitration has been a horrible inflationary mechanism, one that I know a lot of people will be very happy to see gone. It has hurt the game more than it has aided, causing strained relations between players and teams. It worked one way, and one way only, and that was in the player's favor. The players got what they wanted and left the owners with one option only, and that was to walk away, giving players what they wanted even more, unrestricted free agency.

Please don't give me any garbage about the reduction in qualify offers being horrible. To me, this is probably the best part of the offer, since the players still retain guaranteed contracts. The owners actually get to hold players accountable for their performance instead of guaranteeing them a raise, no matter how poorly they have performed. This is a great inflation control mechanism and one that will be fair for all parties involved. For the players, you want to make sure that you don't end up with a 75% qualifying offer, then play hard and prove your worth. If you put in 100% effort and attain the expactation level you should then you have nothing to worry about.

Again, this whole argument boils down to the players want everything and don't want to assume any accountability. They want to be paid millions, but assume no risk. They want guaranteed contracts, but want guaranteed raises in each contract. They want, they want and they want some more. Unfortunately the minute anyone uses words like accountable, responsible, risk or partnership, the players feel the cold hand of reality and run for the apron strings to hide behind. The players get what they deserve, or so they have been saying for over a decade. Well, I hope they remember that when they get a cap rammed down their throats, because their inability to reason has made this exactly what they deserve.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:35 PM
  #15
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robcav
Its more about a huge money grab by the owners.
What's more in the best interest of the fans?

Owners making a profit, which they can use (if they so desire...) to increase advertising and help grow the sport, and also be less likely to move to seek better profits.

OR

Players making as much money as they want, which does nothing for the fans or hockey, just the hockey players.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:36 PM
  #16
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
You are aware that a union's responsibility is to look after the majority of its membership? You are aware that the NHL plan is probably the most fair imaginable. Consider the numbers for a minute.

349 players, earning < $800K, will see 0% reduction. This is around 44% of the association membership.

191 players, earning $800K to $1.499M, will see 15% reduction. This is around 24% of the association membership.

58 players, earning $1.5M to $1.99M, will see 20% reduction. This is around 7% of the association membership.

133 players, earning $2.0M to $3.99M, will see 24% reduction. This is around 16% of the association membership.

24 players, earning $4.0M to $4.99M, will see 30% reduction. This is around 3% of the association membership.

41 players, earning > $5.0M, will see 35% reduction. This is around 5% of the association membership.

So as we can see, 92% of the association is being pushed under the bus so the top 8% can continue to make rediculous salaries. And you really believe that the NHLPA has a leg to stand on morally or ethically? If this were a true union the majority of the players would be looked after, not the top 8%. The fact that the PA even fails to acknowledge this is mind numbing. I can't believe that anyone with a brain would consider arguing that the PA is doing the right thing, for their membership or for their game. Then again, anyone with a brain in their head would look at what they were being paid in the NHL and what their earning potential was elsewhere and be scrambling to sign on the dotted line. I hope the players enjoy their time playing in Europe for a fraction of what they made in the NHL.

The most fair imaginable? How is that fair? Why shouldn't all players cut the same amount off of their salaries, wouldn't that be the fairest way to do it?

And you left out the rest of the NHL proposal. I am not saying that the PA rejected the proposal only because the top 8% don't want the NHL's proposal for many reasons. Obviously the PA as a whole doesn't want it because they don't want to play in a linked system with a diminished presence of salary increase vehicles or a completely abolished arbitration process. The top 40 PA guys are not running the PA, I was simply stating the ways in which the last proposal wasn't fair to them.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 12:44 PM
  #17
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
The top 40 PA guys are not running the PA, I was simply stating the ways in which the last proposal wasn't fair to them.
You better take a look at the NHLPA Executive and then tell me that the top 8% are not running the show. Its like the best and the brightest from the "I'm grossly over-paid" club.

:lol

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:06 PM
  #18
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Well, which would you prefer? 76% of your salary, or 0% of your salary. Come on, think quick.

Arbitration has been a horrible inflationary mechanism, one that I know a lot of people will be very happy to see gone. It has hurt the game more than it has aided, causing strained relations between players and teams. It worked one way, and one way only, and that was in the player's favor. The players got what they wanted and left the owners with one option only, and that was to walk away, giving players what they wanted even more, unrestricted free agency.

Please don't give me any garbage about the reduction in qualify offers being horrible. To me, this is probably the best part of the offer, since the players still retain guaranteed contracts. The owners actually get to hold players accountable for their performance instead of guaranteeing them a raise, no matter how poorly they have performed. This is a great inflation control mechanism and one that will be fair for all parties involved. For the players, you want to make sure that you don't end up with a 75% qualifying offer, then play hard and prove your worth. If you put in 100% effort and attain the expactation level you should then you have nothing to worry about.

Again, this whole argument boils down to the players want everything and don't want to assume any accountability. They want to be paid millions, but assume no risk. They want guaranteed contracts, but want guaranteed raises in each contract. They want, they want and they want some more. Unfortunately the minute anyone uses words like accountable, responsible, risk or partnership, the players feel the cold hand of reality and run for the apron strings to hide behind. The players get what they deserve, or so they have been saying for over a decade. Well, I hope they remember that when they get a cap rammed down their throats, because their inability to reason has made this exactly what they deserve.
Players don't want guaranteed raises, they offered 100% QO's for anyone who makes more than $1 million. I don't think that's too much to ask. If a player had a crap year and isn't worth it then don't offer him a QO, make him a free agent and try to sign him for less (see: Sundstrom, Niklas). Or better yet, under the players' proposal, take him to arbitration.

Why is it that the NHL wants reduced qualifying offers and elimination of salary arbitration as part of their salary cap plan? Their plan ensures a fixed % of revenue would go to salaries, so who cares if players can get raises through arbitration? If they go over that fixed percentage, the money goes back to the owners.

The only thing elimination of arbitration would lead to is a huge number of holdouts, which doesn't benefit anyone.

You've got it backwards. The players don't want and want and want some more, it's the owners. The owners want a salary cap. The owners want to wipe out arbitration. The owners want lower QO's. The owners want everything, and want to leave the players with no rights at all.

CGG is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:12 PM
  #19
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
The owners want everything, and want to leave the players with no rights at all.
TFB. That's what "employees" have for the most part, no rights. If the players want more rights than that, then assume some responsibility. Assume some accountability. They want the right to spend the owners money any way they seem fit, yet put nothing on the line in the form or risk. Get back to me when the players understand the linkage between risk and gain.


Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:20 PM
  #20
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
TFB. That's what "employees" have for the most part, no rights. If the players want more rights than that, then assume some responsibility. Assume some accountability. They want the right to spend the owners money any way they seem fit, yet put nothing on the line in the form or risk. Get back to me when the players understand the linkage between risk and gain.

I'm an employee, my company can't retain me by offering me 50% or 75% of my salary for next year while at the same time prevent me from working somewhere else. If they don't think I'm worth the same salary or a raise, they cut me loose, I go work somewhere else.

CGG is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:23 PM
  #21
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Just to make sure that I didn't think , I post a ''well thought plan'' but at least I try to compromise for both side which NOT THE OWNERS have done at all.

linkage to revenue could only work & ONLY if

1- The NHL share most of their revenue (tickets, merchandise, concession stands, luxury box, local TV)

2- The 30 owners wants to help each other in order to really fix & get 30 franchises healthy.

3- The NHL & NHLPA define what is revenue to share

4- The NHL wants a partnership & acknowledge the NHLPA to be part of the system. (TSN & many many sources told that the OWNERS want partnership but clearly said to the PA that they are employees & it should stay that way).


If you want a HARD SALARY CAP , that's the only way it will work.

Right now, my perception is that the NHL wants to make the PA suffer & they don't care about small markets or 50% of the financial franchises.

My perception is that the NHL proposal is not complete & needs a lot of thing to be answered. If the owners want to be respect by the players , they need to put every aspect behind their proposals & not any IF or BUT or MAYBE in it.

The proposal reduce salary & got linkage but it doesn't answered half of the franchise needs.

How can I expect to think the last NHL proposal seriously if I'm a player when if Nashville make the playoff , they will share it with some NHL team that are healthy but didn't make the playoff due to poor management decisions ?

Just my 2 cents.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 01:27 PM
  #22
Luc Labelle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
The only thing elimination of arbitration would lead to is a huge number of holdouts, which doesn't benefit anyone.
The new CBA should have a signing deadline in order for a player to play in the following season. Much less leverage if the player knows he will miss a full season if he doe not receive the offer he does not deserve in the first place.

Of course gc2005 would state that everything would be in the owner's favour. Not true, if the NHLPA would not run scared everytime they heard the word cap or cost certainty or any other word related to that in their thesauras and actually decided to use their brains to come up with concessions on other points, they might just get a deal that would benefit everyone involved.

Luc Labelle is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:21 PM
  #23
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
I'm an employee, my company can't retain me by offering me 50% or 75% of my salary for next year while at the same time prevent me from working somewhere else. If they don't think I'm worth the same salary or a raise, they cut me loose, I go work somewhere else.
So if your company offers you 75% next year (or nothing) and that 75% is twice what any other company offers you, you'll go work at half the 75% offer?

Makes a lot of sense...

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 12:01 AM
  #24
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
The most fair imaginable? How is that fair? Why shouldn't all players cut the same amount off of their salaries, wouldn't that be the fairest way to do it?
Simple. Because those who have more can afford to give up more. Why do folks who hardly make anything pay no income tax? Why do the rich pay a higher percentage than the middle class, or the low income earners?

The NHL offer was eminently fair. Those who are currently making less than a couple of million haven't yet received the benefit of the salary explosion machine, so why should they pay the same amount as a player who's been receiving the benefit of the old system for years?

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:08 AM
  #25
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
So if your company offers you 75% next year (or nothing) and that 75% is twice what any other company offers you, you'll go work at half the 75% offer?

Makes a lot of sense...
Last time I checked the Labor board in every province of this country would crawl all over the employers back. So again why should everyone in the country have this protection and not the players?

vanlady 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 11:42 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.