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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

McCabe is a Stone Cold Idiot

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2005, 12:14 PM
  #26
bladoww
Team of the Future
 
bladoww's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 1,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
McCabe is a Stone Cold Idiot
I just love the title...

bladoww is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 12:17 PM
  #27
ladybugblue
Registered User
 
ladybugblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
The article doesn't mention whether his comments were made before or after the NHLPA offer.
It actually doesn't matter when it was made as their original offer included a luxury tax. Like with everyone be very careful what you say as it can come back and bite you.

ladybugblue is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 12:21 PM
  #28
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
[size=2]No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget.
If revenues go down then people can be fired or have their hours or wages cut, in the business world. Get rid of guaranteed contracts and the owners could act the same as in the business world.

Quote:
The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.
Due to the potential for collusion charges by the union, the owners need to have that in writing.

Quote:
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks itís a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.
My boss has his boss and his boss and the bank to answer to. That's his cap.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 12:23 PM
  #29
ladybugblue
Registered User
 
ladybugblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.

In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks itís a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.

Next ..

DR

This is true but most budgets are tied to Revenues. Most companies would not give every person a raise to outweigh the revenues. Those companies eventually go into bankrupcy. I have no problem with teams adding one or two players that occassionally are higher than revenues but the problem with sports that in any given year you don't know what the revenues would be (i.e., will the make it to the 3rd round of the playoffs this is uncertain...injuries can effect this as well as a number of factors beyond the owners, GMS control). That is why I would favor a system that had a cap for most players but that there are exceptions for one or two players that are exceptional.

I think the players should negoiate a cap but with maybe much lower free agencies and other stuff...budget is important but has to be based on something and it is usually revenues and costs...

ladybugblue is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 12:49 PM
  #30
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
If revenues go down then people can be fired or have their hours or wages cut, in the business world. Get rid of guaranteed contracts and the owners could act the same as in the business world.
thats not the nature of contracts. just as you can quit if you dont feel you are being paid fairly and a player can not. thats why its a contract, it ties BOTH parties.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Due to the potential for collusion charges by the union, the owners need to have that in writing.
have what in writing ? they can take notes in their budget meeting and have them notarized if they feel its neccesary. no one is suggesting each NHL collude to set a common budget.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
My boss has his boss and his boss and the bank to answer to. That's his cap.
this is absolutly correct. everyone has a boss. however, like i said in my original post, if it makes good business sense to exceed a budget, the boss (and the bank) have the ability to say "ok". this is not the case in an artifically capped world.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 12:58 PM
  #31
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
thats not the nature of contracts. just as you can quit if you dont feel you are being paid fairly and a player can not. thats why its a contract, it ties BOTH parties.
Right, so let's not bring the "business world" into the discussion because it isn't relevant from either sides' point of view.

Quote:
have what in writing ? they can take notes in their budget meeting and have them notarized if they feel its neccesary. no one is suggesting each NHL collude to set a common budget.
But they are suggesting that the upper end of the salary structure be based on what the small number of richest teams can afford and the league can't survive that way.

Quote:
this is absolutly correct. everyone has a boss. however, like i said in my original post, if it makes good business sense to exceed a budget, the boss (and the bank) have the ability to say "ok". this is not the case in an artifically capped world.
It isn't artificial, it is based on the total revenues that the owners with the help of the players generate.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:00 PM
  #32
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
The article doesn't mention whether his comments were made before or after the NHLPA offer.
Well the article is dated today and the NHLPA offer 2 months ago .. So I am pretty sure we know ..

Mess is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:15 PM
  #33
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Bingo.

The weakest part of the owners' position is their total deflection of responsibility to "the inflationary system".
I agree

The biggest Irony as well in this whole Bettman linkage to revenue concept, Is that it is all based on generating more revenue in theory.

SO in a free market world like the old CBA by nature provided the opportunity of the Big Market teams to generate the most revenue for the NHL..

By turning them loose and icing All-Star teams that fans will pay more to see in ticket prices and bring in more fans in opposing building for the star power, would actually serve the greater cause. . .If the NHL could recreate the Oilers of the 1980's to attract fans and then have the Big Market teams build teams to take them on for the Cup .. That would generate interest and reveune for the NHL ..

While I agree it does not create parity but what is more important though MORE REVENUE or MORE PARITY in the NHL to grown the game. .

Bettman could then take the excess revenue from the strong teams and big markets teams as revenue sharing to top up markets like Edmonton that fill the building put are taped out in their ability to generate revenue for the league.. Revenue sharing would allow them to add a star player through UFA or keep its own Stars and that in turn raises them up closer to the top teams ..rather then Bettman tearing down the strong for the good of the weak .. and then tying the players directly to that concept verses linkage ..

IMO its backwards thinking by Bettman .. and McCabe well that is just not thinking at all.

If the strong teams need to keep the NHL strong by their revenues.. then they need to remain strong on the ice to accomplish that .. NO??

Perhaps the first goal should be to make a profitable league across 30 teams and improve the excitment level of the game to allow those other markets to generate more fan interest .. Finally implement a system the creates parity on the ice ..


Last edited by Mess: 02-07-2005 at 01:36 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:20 PM
  #34
jcab2000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Bingo.

The weakest part of the owners' position is their total deflection of responsibility to "the inflationary system".

One owner with one stupid contract can inflate the salaries for all similar players. If owners didn't overpay for any players, teams wouldn't have any players. You think it's reasonable that every owner acts like Bill Wirtz? Now there's a great way to make the game more popular.

jcab2000 is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:36 PM
  #35
jcorb58
Registered User
 
jcorb58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,484
vCash: 500
I used to love hockey now ive finally got to the point that the whole bunch of them (players and owners) can kiss my a_ _ I will never spend another dime on a hockey ticket again. Maybe all the fans should just say screw you. If these players cant live off what they make then they deserve to get a real job. I will be lucky to make 1 million in all my work career and they are crying over an avg of 1.3- 1.6 per year. Its not just McCabe that is a stoned cold idiot its all of them. As for the owners if they wouldnt of been so irresponsible this a cap never would of been needed. Just cancel the next few seasons and get a gripe on reality morons.

jcorb58 is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:40 PM
  #36
MrMackey
Registered User
 
MrMackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: cgy
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Anyone who tries to draw comparisions between running an NHL team and "the business world" is either not familiar with the business world or is an idiot.

You can't compare the two because the operating structures of real-life businesses and NHL franchises are completely different.

MrMackey is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:58 PM
  #37
WhalerBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Armenia
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
What is wrong with this guy?

Actually, forget that, what is wrong with the NHLPA. I used to think of them as an incredibly well run machine that was very solid and very calculating. But this guy keeps going off the deep end with his I'll die before I play with a cap bs! He is just overdoing it and he comes off sounding like an idiot, which only makes the PA look like idiots since he is one of the 30 reps.

Also, Id love to know which morons in the Leaf dressing room thought this would be a good PA rep. You got a room with Niew, Robrts,Blfr, Sundn...and they picked this moron? What, did he beat out Tucker and Domi?

Honestly, if Im Bob Goodenow, I shut the 3 tenors up now. Every time Tucker, Domi and McCabe speak, hockey loses credibility and class.

man, i long for the days of Sittler/McDonald/Salming.

WhalerBoy is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 03:05 PM
  #38
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Bingo.

The weakest part of the owners' position is their total deflection of responsibility to "the inflationary system".
If your home were on fire, would it be more important to put out the flames or find out what started it? Right now, the NHL is on fire and the owners are trying to put out the flames. The facts the owners' carelessness started the fire really matters little.
Ultimately, pinning the blame on one side or the other (FWIW I blame the owners, or at least some of them) is irrelevant. What's relevant is fixing the system.


Last edited by CarlRacki: 02-07-2005 at 04:16 PM.
CarlRacki is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 04:17 PM
  #39
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
If your home were on fire, would it be more important to put out the flames or find out what started it? Right now, the NHL is on fire and the owners are trying to put out the flames.
Ultimately, pinning the blame on one side or the other (FWIW I blame the owners, or at least some of them) is irrelevant. What's relevant is fixing the system.
actually, the guys who started the fire are still standing around with gasoline and matchbooks. even with a US$ 31 million salary cap, a team like the Rangers may only have Holik signed for $ 2 million on the books, but his "personal services" contract to Cablevision (excuse me if i'm wrong about the owner) will still be $ 7 million. Without revenue sharing, the rich owners are always going to cheat because... well, they can afford to.

Hawker14 is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 04:33 PM
  #40
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.

In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks itís a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.

Next ..

DR

The business is the National Hockey League, not the individual teams. Cost certainty *is* a budget. Glad you came on board and support a cap.

 
Old
02-07-2005, 06:21 PM
  #41
David
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR


In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks itís a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.


Speaking of dumb, look who shows up...DR!

Let me just put it to you this way.

In THIS real world, the NHL bosses have decide that it's not a good business decision to exceed their budget...which part of this don't you understand?

...and by your statement, are you admitting that the NHL players are not living in the real world?

Next...

David is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 06:34 PM
  #42
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David

Speaking of dumb, look who shows up...DR!

Let me just put it to you this way.

In THIS real world, the NHL bosses have decide that it's not a good business decision to exceed their budget...which part of this don't you understand?

...and by your statement, are you admitting that the NHL players are not living in the real world?

Next...
i can live with people not sharing my same opinion. but since you have resorted to direct insults, welcome to my ignore list. you will get the response you deserve, nothing.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 06:35 PM
  #43
dunwoody_joe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: atlanta
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.

In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks itís a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.

Next ..

DR


So where do you think the budget comes from, ace?
No top line revenue...expense cuts...loss of job.

Simple capitalism that works everywhere, including Canada!

dunwoody_joe is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 07:11 PM
  #44
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,367
vCash: 500
guys, dr does not like tough love being exercised on him, he just likes dishing it out...kinda like Domi...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 08:00 PM
  #45
David
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
guys, dr does not like tough love being exercised on him, he just likes dishing it out...kinda like Domi...
Or kinda like Linden...

David is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 08:06 PM
  #46
I Hate You All*
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Country: Palau
Posts: 7,243
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to I Hate You All* Send a message via Yahoo to I Hate You All*
Quote:
Originally Posted by snakepliskin
cut maccabe some slack-he is a hockey player not a rockete scientist
:lol

I Hate You All* is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 08:10 PM
  #47
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,770
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by snakepliskin
cut maccabe some slack-he is a hockey player not a rockete scientist (a bad hockey player but still a hockey player)

I would like to nominate this post as "post of the year"

It's great to see new intelligent posters making on the mark observations

Btw Snake.....he was 4th in Norris voting. I guess everyone under him was a bad hockey player as well :-)

Actually I'd like to see your skill, since you like to call NHL'ers bad hockey players

Poignant Discussion is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 08:20 PM
  #48
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
I would like to nominate this post as "post of the year"

It's great to see new intelligent posters making on the mark observations

Btw Snake.....he was 4th in Norris voting. I guess everyone under him was a bad hockey player as well :-)

Actually I'd like to see your skill, since you like to call NHL'ers bad hockey players
The guy wasn't good enough to play third line defence for a European team. That's just pathetic. :lol

 
Old
02-07-2005, 09:04 PM
  #49
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,843
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks itís a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.

Next ..

DR

They have a huge problem with it, as they are fighting the NHL RIGHT NOW, against Owners trying to set a budget. They don't have a problem with it when the budgets of the wealthier teams drive up the salaries for the rest of the league (or the bone headed offers by a couple of the Owners). They don't have a problem with that because then the players are firmly in the drivers seat. A league wide budget removes that power from the players, so of course they don't have any interst in it.

There's no need to be willfully ignorant of what the players are doing just because you support them.

quat is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 09:15 PM
  #50
WHARF1940
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: down in a hole
Country: United States
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
I agree

The biggest Irony as well in this whole Bettman linkage to revenue concept, Is that it is all based on generating more revenue in theory.

SO in a free market world like the old CBA by nature provided the opportunity of the Big Market teams to generate the most revenue for the NHL..

By turning them loose and icing All-Star teams that fans will pay more to see in ticket prices and bring in more fans in opposing building for the star power, would actually serve the greater cause. . .If the NHL could recreate the Oilers of the 1980's to attract fans and then have the Big Market teams build teams to take them on for the Cup .. That would generate interest and reveune for the NHL ..

While I agree it does not create parity but what is more important though MORE REVENUE or MORE PARITY in the NHL to grown the game. .

Bettman could then take the excess revenue from the strong teams and big markets teams as revenue sharing to top up markets like Edmonton that fill the building put are taped out in their ability to generate revenue for the league.. Revenue sharing would allow them to add a star player through UFA or keep its own Stars and that in turn raises them up closer to the top teams ..rather then Bettman tearing down the strong for the good of the weak .. and then tying the players directly to that concept verses linkage ..

IMO its backwards thinking by Bettman .. and McCabe well that is just not thinking at all.

If the strong teams need to keep the NHL strong by their revenues.. then they need to remain strong on the ice to accomplish that .. NO??
Holy christ, every time i obviously fail to make a point in one thread, someone else takes it and makes it in another! This is very aggravating. This is the first part of "Two Questions"!

WHARF1940 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 07:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.