HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

So many must think the old CBA worked

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-09-2005, 10:48 PM
  #1
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
So many must think the old CBA worked

I keep hearing this disturbing thing over and over again, that if teams can't compete financially, that they are in a bad market, and shouldn't be in the NHL. What an assanine thing to say, that the CBA that the NHL was recently under was working, it's just the small market teams that can't compete in it that are the problem. Some people have no idea why we have lost 150 game, or maybe a whole season over.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 01:26 AM
  #2
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I keep hearing this disturbing thing over and over again, that if teams can't compete financially, that they are in a bad market, and shouldn't be in the NHL. What an assanine thing to say, that the CBA that the NHL was recently under was working, it's just the small market teams that can't compete in it that are the problem. Some people have no idea why we have lost 150 game, or maybe a whole season over.
I don't think a lot of people are going to say it worked and the players acknowledge that by offer to give back a 1/4 of their Salaries ..

Arbitration and Qualifying offers for RFA caused the biggest increases and problems, which need to be fixed and owners mistakes contributed as well ..

However as great as the difference was in Salaries top to bottom .. Calgary, Anaheim, Carolina and Buffalo over the past 5-6 years proved that a bigger more expensive team on paper are not necessarily more successful on the ice ..

This smaller market teams require Revenue sharing to be equal parity wise via team Salaries wise .. but a luxury tax system with teeth were the fines and penalties could go to these teams would work if it had real teeth and really stoped big market teams from spending ..

Mess is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 07:30 AM
  #3
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I keep hearing this disturbing thing over and over again, that if teams can't compete financially, that they are in a bad market, and shouldn't be in the NHL. What an assanine thing to say, that the CBA that the NHL was recently under was working, it's just the small market teams that can't compete in it that are the problem. Some people have no idea why we have lost 150 game, or maybe a whole season over.
The fans aren't saying that, the league is.

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

Two ways to address that,

1) Take out the weakest link.
2) Make all the links weak.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 12:38 PM
  #4
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
The fans aren't saying that, the league is.

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

Two ways to address that,

1) Take out the weakest link.
2) Make all the links weak.

Make all the links weak? So you mean if the playing field is even, right? What I don't understand is, why to so many fans of large market teams, this such a problem? Drafting, and scouting are the way a lot of teams have had to operate, and to have to bring the large market teams down to that level seems like such a crime to a lot of you guys. We value our prospects so much, and we think guys like Wellwood, Stajan, and Cola are gonna be great players, well then we should have nothing to worry about if our teams scouts do their job right.
And taking out the weakest links, is not even in the NHLPA's vocabulary. The NHLPA will not want to lose jobs, which is what contracting will do.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 01:25 PM
  #5
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
Make all the links weak? So you mean if the playing field is even, right? What I don't understand is, why to so many fans of large market teams, this such a problem? Drafting, and scouting are the way a lot of teams have had to operate, and to have to bring the large market teams down to that level seems like such a crime to a lot of you guys. We value our prospects so much, and we think guys like Wellwood, Stajan, and Cola are gonna be great players, well then we should have nothing to worry about if our teams scouts do their job right.
And taking out the weakest links, is not even in the NHLPA's vocabulary. The NHLPA will not want to lose jobs, which is what contracting will do.
I don't care what the NHLPA has in its' vocabulary. Could care less, they make no decisions or judgement calls on what I think.

Thinking is something everyone is allowed to do, but perhaps it is too much work for some

Anyway, how many Yankee games are played in Edmonton, Calgary, Los Angeles, ...?

How many ManU games are played in Miami, Detroit, Munich?

Big market makes big dollars.

I do think poor markets like Edmonton, Calgary, Pittsburgh should be allowed to sell players on the open market. If you could get 15 million cash for Ryan Smyth, sure it might weaken that one position on the team, but you can buy a UFA, or pay your Next One out of that and perhaps not even miss a beat. Buying players hasn't proven to win, but Everton in the EPL has shown selling them can sure make a positive influence for both on field and off field performance.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 01:47 PM
  #6
loveshack2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old School
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

Two ways to address that,

1) Take out the weakest link.
2) Make all the links weak.
I think that's a rather narrow view. If you start removing all the weak links then you might end up with a chain that's only got 4 or 5 links in it. And that's a pretty useless chain. Instead of trying to hold everyone to the highest economic standard, or bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator, we should be looking for some middle ground here. What are the 12th-18th best franchises economically in the league? I dont know, but logic would indicate that those are the franchises we should be looking at to set some kind of a baseline.

loveshack2 is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 02:06 PM
  #7
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
I don't care what the NHLPA has in its' vocabulary. Could care less, they make no decisions or judgement calls on what I think.

Thinking is something everyone is allowed to do, but perhaps it is too much work for some

Anyway, how many Yankee games are played in Edmonton, Calgary, Los Angeles, ...?

How many ManU games are played in Miami, Detroit, Munich?

Big market makes big dollars.
OK, maybe there's something cryptic about what you are trying to tell me here, but I'm not sure what proving the yankees don't ever play in edmonton or calgary has to do with anything.
I guess it depends on how you want to see the NHL run. If you want only a handful of teams that can pay players way more then what they are worth, then I guess that's the league you want. Me personally, and what the NHL is trying to do, is make it so the small market teams like Edmonton can compete in a league with the New Yorks, and the Torontos'.

LeafErikson* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 02:33 PM
  #8
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4850
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
OK, maybe there's something cryptic about what you are trying to tell me here, but I'm not sure what proving the yankees don't ever play in edmonton or calgary has to do with anything.
I guess it depends on how you want to see the NHL run. If you want only a handful of teams that can pay players way more then what they are worth, then I guess that's the league you want. Me personally, and what the NHL is trying to do, is make it so the small market teams like Edmonton can compete in a league with the New Yorks, and the Torontos'.
Let me ask you 1 question Eddie.
Do you feel the NHLs expansion to 30 teams has helped make the NHL product stronger and more viable,has it had a negative effect or none at all?

leaflover is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 03:09 PM
  #9
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I guess it depends on how you want to see the NHL run. If you want only a handful of teams that can pay players way more then what they are worth, then I guess that's the league you want. Me personally, and what the NHL is trying to do, is make it so the small market teams like Edmonton can compete in a league with the New Yorks, and the Torontos'.
There already is more than just a handful of teams that can pay the players, and the small market teams in hockey towns will survive just fine with some financial assistance, unless of course you're one of the sheep that actually believes the NHL figures.

Edmonton & New York? Bad examples to use. Edmonton has had twice the success New York has despite having half the payroll. And it goes further than those two examples as evidenced by recent history...Annaheim, Carolina, Calgary, Buffalo, Tampa...in the finals, or how about the fact that in the past 3 years the 12 conference finalists have been 12 different teams. The disparity isn't as large as many NHL hardline loyalists believe.

The old system can't continue to operate, I don't see anyone acknowledging that, including the players who would stand the most to gain from it, so I don't know where the original accusations come from. However, a modified version of the Players December offer is workable and will not only provide some much needed financial assistance to the teams that could use the help but would also cause larger markets to be reluctant in signing high priced players that puts them over the cap, do you honestly believe that Toronto would easily throw $10 million to a player with a market value of $5 million?

The latest proposal from Bettman was a joke and only those with blinders on couldn't see through it. Taking the players original proposal allowed for all current players under contract with teams still needing to add more just to fill out the roster. The minute the players did up their laces the NHL's Feb offer would kick in.

AND the $42 million trigger that Bettman suggested is for PLAYER COSTS as he continuelly states. I have yet to hear him say NHL level salaries in any form of cap or restrictions he mentions. (Feel free to prove me wrong here, I'd love to be, because I can't believe a bigger issue isn't being made of this). Take Carolina for example, two years ago their NHL salaries were $33.75 million, BUT their reported player costs for that same year according to the previous CBA (which I can't see differing in definition) which include pensions, buy outs, on site medicals etc, etc. came to $46.1 million.

So in fact, if you use those numbers as an example, only 73% of player costs are actual NHL salaries, which means that with Bettmans latest proposal of a $42 million cap NHL teams will only have around $30.7 million to spend on fielding a team for NHL play. (A large chunk of player costs are hard costs and wouldn't be reduced by much with the rollback, even then I don't think the roll back affects AHL contracts).

Yeah, 30.7 million is what you can spend, even if you give for 10% margin of error, Bettman expects teams to spend AT MOST 33.77 million on their players.

You think that's reasonable?


Last edited by Dar: 02-10-2005 at 03:17 PM.
Dar is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 04:15 PM
  #10
Falon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 1,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
There already is more than just a handful of teams that can pay the players, and the small market teams in hockey towns will survive just fine with some financial assistance, unless of course you're one of the sheep that actually believes the NHL figures.

Edmonton & New York? Bad examples to use. Edmonton has had twice the success New York has despite having half the payroll. And it goes further than those two examples as evidenced by recent history...Annaheim, Carolina, Calgary, Buffalo, Tampa...in the finals, or how about the fact that in the past 3 years the 12 conference finalists have been 12 different teams. The disparity isn't as large as many NHL hardline loyalists believe.

The old system can't continue to operate, I don't see anyone acknowledging that, including the players who would stand the most to gain from it, so I don't know where the original accusations come from. However, a modified version of the Players December offer is workable and will not only provide some much needed financial assistance to the teams that could use the help but would also cause larger markets to be reluctant in signing high priced players that puts them over the cap, do you honestly believe that Toronto would easily throw $10 million to a player with a market value of $5 million?

The latest proposal from Bettman was a joke and only those with blinders on couldn't see through it. Taking the players original proposal allowed for all current players under contract with teams still needing to add more just to fill out the roster. The minute the players did up their laces the NHL's Feb offer would kick in.

AND the $42 million trigger that Bettman suggested is for PLAYER COSTS as he continuelly states. I have yet to hear him say NHL level salaries in any form of cap or restrictions he mentions. (Feel free to prove me wrong here, I'd love to be, because I can't believe a bigger issue isn't being made of this). Take Carolina for example, two years ago their NHL salaries were $33.75 million, BUT their reported player costs for that same year according to the previous CBA (which I can't see differing in definition) which include pensions, buy outs, on site medicals etc, etc. came to $46.1 million.

So in fact, if you use those numbers as an example, only 73% of player costs are actual NHL salaries, which means that with Bettmans latest proposal of a $42 million cap NHL teams will only have around $30.7 million to spend on fielding a team for NHL play. (A large chunk of player costs are hard costs and wouldn't be reduced by much with the rollback, even then I don't think the roll back affects AHL contracts).

Yeah, 30.7 million is what you can spend, even if you give for 10% margin of error, Bettman expects teams to spend AT MOST 33.77 million on their players.

You think that's reasonable?
You know what, i do think it is reasonable. And here is why, please fell free to butcher my numbers here as I have no doubt that it will happen anyway.

To me, a 1st line player making 3 million dollars a season is reasonable.

1 LW, 1 C, 1 RW, 2 D - 15 million dollars.

2nd line players say 2 million. 1 LW, 1 C, 1 RW, 2 D - 10 million

3rd line players say 1 million. 1 LW, 1 C, 1 RW, 2 D - 5 million

4th line players say 500,000. 1 LW, 1 C, 1 RW - 1.5 million.

1st string goalie say 3 million
backup say 750,000.

total: 35,250,000. Not counting AHL contracts. Given the fact that the owners are offering between 32 million and 42 million. There is plenty of wiggle room IMO. I think one of the major problems is that 3 million to a 6-8 million dollar man seems like a slap in the face. I think that a major overhaul needs to come in the mindset of the players. They need to understand that 3 million or 2 million is still 3 million or 2 million. It is still excellent money that can keep a person in a very comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their life. Keep in mind as well, that this is per year. I remember when players were making 40,000 at entry level. In Gilmour's retirement speech, he spoke about how when he came into the league he was making 40,000 a season and the highest paid player on their team was Mike Liut who was making 500,000. He said that all he could think about was that if he could make that kind of money one day, he would be set for life. Somewhere along the way, a million a season became so small an amount that 4th liners make it. Which to me is disgusting. Playing like 4-6 minutes a game and still being a million dollar man. I do not see how one can defend a group that demands such money, when clearly half of what they make would still keep them in lavish lifestyles well after hockey.

Falon is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 04:37 PM
  #11
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falon
You know what, i do think it is reasonable. And here is why, please fell free to butcher my numbers here as I have no doubt that it will happen anyway.
No, no. I'm not going to butcher your numbers, they add up correctly and are a reflection of what you feel a player should be paid. As such, they are accurate.

Quote:
They need to understand that 3 million or 2 million is still 3 million or 2 million.
Only one problem with that, 2 or 3 million isn't 2 or 3 million, it's closer to 1.2 and 1.8 million. Don't you just love taxes. I know, we all pay them (well, mostly) but the take home pay is what I count each paycheck.

Quote:
It is still excellent money that can keep a person in a very comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their life. Keep in mind as well, that this is per year.
That is a very easy statement for you or I to make. Most of us could only dream of making multi millions per year. However, it is the same reason why all pro-sports players are making big bucks, why movie stars are commanding up to $25 million for an eight week movie shoot, and why CEO's for large corporations take home 7 digit salaries. They for the most part are the ones that generate the revenue by draining suckers like ourselves from our much lesser money.

Quote:
I remember when players were making 40,000 at entry level. In Gilmour's retirement speech, he spoke about how when he came into the league he was making 40,000 a season and the highest paid player on their team was Mike Liut who was making 500,000. He said that all he could think about was that if he could make that kind of money one day, he would be set for life.
And times, they are a changin'. Prior to the late eighties players were fiscally slaughtered by the owners and almost overnight the PA reversed those roles. Now, it's time to find a middle ground, hence negotiations, not the demands the NHL is trying to bully in which become more restrictive with each passing day.
Quote:
I do not see how one can defend a group that demands such money, when clearly half of what they make would still keep them in lavish lifestyles well after hockey.
Again, that's very easy for us average Joe's to say, but these players have a special talent that none of us do, even the fourth liners have that quality, otherwise the pool of players to select from in the NHL would be in the hundreds of thousands with each little tike who laces up from the age of 4 having a realistic shot in the NHL. With that, more supply becomes less demand which in turn would drastically reduce the salaries. Unfortunately in the real world and in this capitalist society that we so lavishly cherish, when you have three teams wanting one player, prices will escalate.

In my opinion the only true solution to the above is 1) to slightly lower the age of UFA's and two 2) Put an influx of around, oh, I don't know, say around 138 (23 x 6 ) players back into the market. But, like you, it's just MO.

Dar is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 04:46 PM
  #12
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar

Edmonton & New York? Bad examples to use. Edmonton has had twice the success New York has despite having half the payroll. And it goes further than those two examples as evidenced by recent history...Annaheim, Carolina, Calgary, Buffalo, Tampa...in the finals, or how about the fact that in the past 3 years the 12 conference finalists have been 12 different teams. The disparity isn't as large as many NHL hardline loyalists believe.
How many times have those teams made the playoffs over the last number of years? Calgary missed the playoffs for 7 consecutive seasons before having one good run to the finals.

I can tell you that Tampa Bay isn't thrilled with having to increase their payroll drastically because some players had career years.
Quote:
The latest proposal from Bettman was a joke and only those with blinders on couldn't see through it. Taking the players original proposal allowed for all current players under contract with teams still needing to add more just to fill out the roster. The minute the players did up their laces the NHL's Feb offer would kick in.
Where are the players' proposals? They don't have any, they are just sitting around waiting for the NHL to make a bad deal out of desperation. They don't have debts to pay off or employees to pay so they can stand around and wait for the owners to cave or cancel the season.
Quote:
AND the $42 million trigger that Bettman suggested is for PLAYER COSTS as he continuelly states. I have yet to hear him say NHL level salaries in any form of cap or restrictions he mentions. (Feel free to prove me wrong here, I'd love to be, because I can't believe a bigger issue isn't being made of this). Take Carolina for example, two years ago their NHL salaries were $33.75 million, BUT their reported player costs for that same year according to the previous CBA (which I can't see differing in definition) which include pensions, buy outs, on site medicals etc, etc. came to $46.1 million.
Where did this interpretation of player costs related to the cap come from?

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 06:39 PM
  #13
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,112
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
There already is more than just a handful of teams that can pay the players, and the small market teams in hockey towns will survive just fine with some financial assistance, unless of course you're one of the sheep that actually believes the NHL figures.

Edmonton & New York? Bad examples to use. Edmonton has had twice the success New York has despite having half the payroll. And it goes further than those two examples as evidenced by recent history...Annaheim, Carolina, Calgary, Buffalo, Tampa...in the finals, or how about the fact that in the past 3 years the 12 conference finalists have been 12 different teams. The disparity isn't as large as many NHL hardline loyalists believe.

The old system can't continue to operate, I don't see anyone acknowledging that, including the players who would stand the most to gain from it, so I don't know where the original accusations come from. However, a modified version of the Players December offer is workable and will not only provide some much needed financial assistance to the teams that could use the help but would also cause larger markets to be reluctant in signing high priced players that puts them over the cap, do you honestly believe that Toronto would easily throw $10 million to a player with a market value of $5 million?

The latest proposal from Bettman was a joke and only those with blinders on couldn't see through it. Taking the players original proposal allowed for all current players under contract with teams still needing to add more just to fill out the roster. The minute the players did up their laces the NHL's Feb offer would kick in.

AND the $42 million trigger that Bettman suggested is for PLAYER COSTS as he continuelly states. I have yet to hear him say NHL level salaries in any form of cap or restrictions he mentions. (Feel free to prove me wrong here, I'd love to be, because I can't believe a bigger issue isn't being made of this). Take Carolina for example, two years ago their NHL salaries were $33.75 million, BUT their reported player costs for that same year according to the previous CBA (which I can't see differing in definition) which include pensions, buy outs, on site medicals etc, etc. came to $46.1 million.

So in fact, if you use those numbers as an example, only 73% of player costs are actual NHL salaries, which means that with Bettmans latest proposal of a $42 million cap NHL teams will only have around $30.7 million to spend on fielding a team for NHL play. (A large chunk of player costs are hard costs and wouldn't be reduced by much with the rollback, even then I don't think the roll back affects AHL contracts).

Yeah, 30.7 million is what you can spend, even if you give for 10% margin of error, Bettman expects teams to spend AT MOST 33.77 million on their players.

You think that's reasonable?
Here's why I think it's reasonable. What are the players union affraid of, that their proposal will fail? If their proposal had any grounds, why would they be affraid? they are given the opportunity to run the NHL without a salary cap. take the deal and run with it, and succeed in making the NHL stronger.. by all means. If they fail, then the NHL will step in and enforce their proposal. What more could you ask for. As long as they can keep the players from exceeding more than 55% of the leagues revenue.

Vagabond is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 09:38 PM
  #14
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,052
vCash: 500
A business is a business is a business. If a business (an individual team) is losing millions of dollars a year because there is no demand for its product in its market, then its owners shouldn't be in the business. They shouldn't be looking to limit the operations of successful businesses and their abilities to improve their product.

That said, I think small market teams can survive and compete in a league without a salary cap, and that winning isn't dependent on spending lots of money. New Jersey (1995) Florida, Calgary, Buffalo, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Anaheim have all proven during the life of the last CBA that small budget teams can make it to the finals and win in some cases. The New York Rangers prove that spending money doesn't guarantee Cup wins.

I refuse to believe for a second that any team has lost money on a regular basis over the past several seasons. The Edmonton Oilers, for example, have been crying poor since the late '80's and threatening to move. They've been selling off their stars since that time, and that was when the average NHL payroll was probably somewhere around $5 million. Yet somehow they will be alright in a league with a salary cap of $30-$44 while paying in the exact same facility? Hmmmm...

Stephen is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 10:10 PM
  #15
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
A business is a business is a business. If a business (an individual team) is losing millions of dollars a year because there is no demand for its product in its market, then its owners shouldn't be in the business. They shouldn't be looking to limit the operations of successful businesses and their abilities to improve their product.

That said, I think small market teams can survive and compete in a league without a salary cap, and that winning isn't dependent on spending lots of money. New Jersey (1995) Florida, Calgary, Buffalo, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Anaheim have all proven during the life of the last CBA that small budget teams can make it to the finals and win in some cases. The New York Rangers prove that spending money doesn't guarantee Cup wins.

I refuse to believe for a second that any team has lost money on a regular basis over the past several seasons. The Edmonton Oilers, for example, have been crying poor since the late '80's and threatening to move. They've been selling off their stars since that time, and that was when the average NHL payroll was probably somewhere around $5 million. Yet somehow they will be alright in a league with a salary cap of $30-$44 while paying in the exact same facility? Hmmmm...
I agree that business is business... that's exactly why the owners are doing what they're doing now. They're trying to create an environment where they can all do okay.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with your Oilers annalogy...

Peter Pocklingon, the former owner of the oilers was going to sell the team to someone from out of town... a group of local owners stepped in and bought the team and saved it. Since then they have repeatedly stated that they wanted a CAP like system, in part cause it will help them retain the players that we've developed and that would, in turn allow them to raise ticket prices to create more revenue. On another point, we haven't 'sold off' any players for years... we've been forced to trade quite a few of our fellows cause we knew that we would have to pay WAY too much to keep them.

barrel_master is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 10:19 PM
  #16
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,112
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
The Oilers have not threatened to move or close since 1996, not since the late 80's! Pocklington screwed the business at that time until the new ownership group was formed and SAVED them from leaving town.

What you're saying then is; alleviate all the small market teams and the league will end up with nine or ten teams. All that comes from your mouth is nothing but ignorance. Do you ever see through another perspective besides your own?


Last edited by Vagabond: 02-10-2005 at 11:47 PM.
Vagabond is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 11:45 PM
  #17
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master
I agree that business is business... that's exactly why the owners are doing what they're doing now. They're trying to create an environment where they can all do okay.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with your Oilers annalogy...

Peter Pocklingon, the former owner of the oilers was going to sell the team to someone from out of town... a group of local owners stepped in and bought the team and saved it. Since then they have repeatedly stated that they wanted a CAP like system, in part cause it will help them retain the players that we've developed and that would, in turn allow them to raise ticket prices to create more revenue. On another point, we haven't 'sold off' any players for years... we've been forced to trade quite a few of our fellows cause we knew that we would have to pay WAY too much to keep them.
Well, I'm really just referring to the Oiler's "we're in financial trouble and we'll have to leave town if things don't change" mantra that they've been repeating for a while now. I know the Pocklington situation was more of a individual financial issue, but it still true that they have been saying that NHL hockey is an endangered species in the small markets. They were struggling with a $10 million payroll in 1996, yet they've been able to soldier on with inflated costs throughout the years.

But my real point is that I don't believe the owners. I fail to see how any small market team is going to magically be able to survive with a $30-$45 million cap, or how this certainty will allow these owners to raise prices when these small market teams are collectively losing hundreds of millions of dollars with budgets significantly lower than those of today and of the past decade. If Nashville, for example, is having a hard time with a payroll in the mid $20 million range, what help is a $33.7 million cap as mentioned above?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the prescribed solution put forth by Bettman and the owners doesn't really seem to solve the problems they're claiming are there. It leads me to believe that they just want a bigger piece of the pie, which isn't wrong on its own, but it is hard to ask for.

Stephen is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 12:04 AM
  #18
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Well, I'm really just referring to the Oiler's "we're in financial trouble and we'll have to leave town if things don't change" mantra that they've been repeating for a while now. I know the Pocklington situation was more of a individual financial issue, but it still true that they have been saying that NHL hockey is an endangered species in the small markets. They were struggling with a $10 million payroll in 1996, yet they've been able to soldier on with inflated costs throughout the years.

But my real point is that I don't believe the owners. I fail to see how any small market team is going to magically be able to survive with a $30-$45 million cap, or how this certainty will allow these owners to raise prices when these small market teams are collectively losing hundreds of millions of dollars with budgets significantly lower than those of today and of the past decade. If Nashville, for example, is having a hard time with a payroll in the mid $20 million range, what help is a $33.7 million cap as mentioned above?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the prescribed solution put forth by Bettman and the owners doesn't really seem to solve the problems they're claiming are there. It leads me to believe that they just want a bigger piece of the pie, which isn't wrong on its own, but it is hard to ask for.
Thanks for your response... honestly, I've never understood the PA sympathizer's arguements and your response is the best I've ever received from that perspective. Honestly, if you don't belive the owners there really isn't all that much I can do to convince you otherwise anyway so we'll leave that at that.

Although, I will respond to a psudo question you had in your post. I think that when it comes to sports fans, a great deal of support and enthusiasim (and therefore revenue) is generated from the psycological belif that their team has a chance and fights hard. Unfortunately, most people in Edmonton don't think our team has a chance as we trade away a great number of our best players to other teams since we don't have the cash to keep them. True, we won't get any new cash from a hard CAP alone but a CAP will force salaries downward and we would be able to keep more of our guys (although probably not all). By keeping more of our guys, I think a lot of Edmonton fans will be more supportive of the team, in part cause we might think that we have a better chance at winning.

Once again, thank you for your post.

barrel_master is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 12:31 AM
  #19
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,052
vCash: 500
I'm not a PA sympathizer, I just can't stand rhetoric, and I think the players are more honest when it comes to their position of wanting to protect their earning potential as opposed to the bull the owners are trying to sell to everybody.

I understand where you're coming from as an Edmonton fan. Barely scraping into the playoffs and getting knocked out in the first round is not fun, and keeping your veterans would certainly help. It's just that in a market like Edmonton's, the team is already making as much money as it can with sellout crowds and great fan support etc. doesn't really stand to benefit too much from a better team with more success that a salary cap provides in an economic sense. The Oilers are still writing cheques for the same amount of money and they make the same amount of money.

And in regards to Edmonton specifically, I think some of the trouble lies in the fact that the Oilers aren't built to win so much as to be basically competitive. Instead of rebuilding from the ground up like other small market division leaders and powerhouses like Vancouver, Ottawa, or Tampa Bay, who sort of aim to put together a bunch of young players of the same age group together and grow to contender status, the Oilers make piece meal renovations that keep them mediocre. Also, they've been pretty bad at the draft table for most of the '90's which doesn't help.

Stephen is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:25 AM
  #20
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
The fans aren't saying that, the league is.

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

Two ways to address that,

1) Take out the weakest link.
2) Make all the links weak.
both the nfl and nba use the philosophy
of

you are only as strong as your weakest link

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 09:17 AM
  #21
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond
Here's why I think it's reasonable. What are the players union affraid of, that their proposal will fail? If their proposal had any grounds, why would they be affraid? they are given the opportunity to run the NHL without a salary cap. take the deal and run with it, and succeed in making the NHL stronger.. by all means. If they fail, then the NHL will step in and enforce their proposal. What more could you ask for. As long as they can keep the players from exceeding more than 55% of the leagues revenue.
There's nothing for them to be afraid of. It's common knowledge that their proposal won't have a chance to prove it'll work.
Even Burke acknowledges that. This opportunity that you speak of will be nullified the minute they start skating. Even with the 24% rollback more than 3 teams will be above $42 million, trigger. There'll be more than 33% payroll disparity between the top 3 teams and the bottom 3 teams, trigger. The NHL's own calculations in their rejection of the PA's proposal had the PA at 56.6% of the league revenues with the 24% rollback, trigger. The NHL in the same rejection showed that total NHL player costs for 04-05 would be immediately 1.2064 billion which averages out to $40.21 million per team, trigger.

So, how exactly can the PA prove their system works when it isn't given a chance to get off the ground in the first place. The only thing that happens is that the owners get the advantage of the full 24% rollback on top of their induced system. The PA's proposal is workable when some major revisions are made to it. IMO, it has been the only negotiable offer since talks began.

Dar is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:05 AM
  #22
It Kills Me
Registered User
 
It Kills Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,792
vCash: 500
Removing the weaker teams will also stack up the stronger more money gaining teams, and give us better hockey.

Who needs a hockey team in Tampa and Florida? People can drive to see a game. Same with the MLBs new Baltimore and Washingston. Who needs a team in LA and Anahiem (especially if Anahiems losing money) or the New York Isles?

It Kills Me is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:09 AM
  #23
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
There's nothing for them to be afraid of. It's common knowledge that their proposal won't have a chance to prove it'll work.
Even Burke acknowledges that. This opportunity that you speak of will be nullified the minute they start skating. Even with the 24% rollback more than 3 teams will be above $42 million, trigger. There'll be more than 33% payroll disparity between the top 3 teams and the bottom 3 teams, trigger. The NHL's own calculations in their rejection of the PA's proposal had the PA at 56.6% of the league revenues with the 24% rollback, trigger. The NHL in the same rejection showed that total NHL player costs for 04-05 would be immediately 1.2064 billion which averages out to $40.21 million per team, trigger.

So, how exactly can the PA prove their system works when it isn't given a chance to get off the ground in the first place. The only thing that happens is that the owners get the advantage of the full 24% rollback on top of their induced system. The PA's proposal is workable when some major revisions are made to it. IMO, it has been the only negotiable offer since talks began.
Correct ..

and the key to all these triggers to start with is that they do not accurate measure the success or failure of the NHLPA proposal but in fact the Owners ..

The players system didn't say that the difference between the top and bottom in payroll could only be X % amount .. They said here is 24% back spend it wisely..and that all teams are at different stages so you will have Salary disparity but not success disparity if you choose to.

They didn't say no team could not go over $42 million .. Their system suggests a luxury tax beginning at $42 mil level and the money paid in fines goes to the small market teams to slow down big market owner spending .. .

The players system was a completely different attempt to correct the market and its success or failure as you point out is not only IMMEDIATE FAILURE based on the NHL triggers but the measures of success are not even relevant to testing it ..

Mess is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:42 AM
  #24
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
There's nothing for them to be afraid of. It's common knowledge that their proposal won't have a chance to prove it'll work.
Even Burke acknowledges that. This opportunity that you speak of will be nullified the minute they start skating. Even with the 24% rollback more than 3 teams will be above $42 million, trigger. There'll be more than 33% payroll disparity between the top 3 teams and the bottom 3 teams, trigger. The NHL's own calculations in their rejection of the PA's proposal had the PA at 56.6% of the league revenues with the 24% rollback, trigger. The NHL in the same rejection showed that total NHL player costs for 04-05 would be immediately 1.2064 billion which averages out to $40.21 million per team, trigger.

So, how exactly can the PA prove their system works when it isn't given a chance to get off the ground in the first place. The only thing that happens is that the owners get the advantage of the full 24% rollback on top of their induced system. The PA's proposal is workable when some major revisions are made to it. IMO, it has been the only negotiable offer since talks began.
But the NHLPA hasn't been negotiating off of it. They have it out there as their best and only offer but in any negotiating procedure your first offer is never your best one.

If the season gets cancelled then that proposal is basically useless because there are going to be so many players out there without contracts a 24% rollback on nothing is still nothing.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 12:49 PM
  #25
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
But the NHLPA hasn't been negotiating off of it. They have it out there as their best and only offer but in any negotiating procedure your first offer is never your best one.
You mean the NHL hasn't been negotiating off it. The closest the NHL has come is to include the 24% in their original offer and they'll compromise by maybe including a luxury tax within the frame work of their hard cap. Why would the PA bring forth a new stricter offer only to have the NHL just add them to their own offer. Because, that's what's happened so far.

Quote:
If the season gets cancelled then that proposal is basically useless because there are going to be so many players out there without contracts a 24% rollback on nothing is still nothing.
True, but right away players will have a lower salary in which to compare their play.

I'm not insinuating that the players offer as it stands will work, I don't believe it will. However, give it some teeth and a lot of the problems will be answered. They'll never all be solved, but then, the NHL offer doesn't either, even from the owner's point of view.

Dar 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 04:44 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.