HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL vs. NHLPA: Who's the real enemy?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-23-2004, 05:34 PM
  #1
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,489
vCash: 500
NHL vs. NHLPA: Who's the real enemy?

Silly question, just want to hear whos side you guys are on

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 06:32 PM
  #2
tiredman
Registered User
 
tiredman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ville de Québec
Country:
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
enemy : NHLPA

tiredman is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 06:34 PM
  #3
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,890
vCash: 500
enemy, friend?

Who cares..you got to look at it from both POV's. This is a business..the players are trying to maximis their salaries while the owners are trying to maximis their revenues. There is no good or bad guy here, it's a business.

Traitor8 is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 06:57 PM
  #4
Histrion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Fortified City
Posts: 3,338
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Histrion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komisarek8
enemy, friend?

Who cares..you got to look at it from both POV's. This is a business..the players are trying to maximis their salaries while the owners are trying to maximis their revenues. There is no good or bad guy here, it's a business.
Agreed. It would be silly to try to simplify the situation by diabolizing one side. Both of them are doing what they think is the best for their interests, that's what everybody does. It would be quite hypocrite to blame someone for wanting what's best for him, wouldn't it?

Histrion is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 07:17 PM
  #5
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,489
vCash: 500
Ok, do you think players should have outlandish salaries under a no-cap; as the NHLPA might contest; though not in the same words

OR

Would you like a hard salary cap so the clubs are getting quality talent and arent worried about excessive salary, as the NHL would contest

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 07:44 PM
  #6
Golbez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Where Darkness Falls
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 300
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Golbez Send a message via MSN to Golbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by futurcorerock
Ok, do you think players should have outlandish salaries under a no-cap; as the NHLPA might contest; though not in the same words

OR

Would you like a hard salary cap so the clubs are getting quality talent and arent worried about excessive salary, as the NHL would contest
I'd prefer a free market with better revenue sharing and a lower UFA age.

Players shouldn't be limited in their earning potential. The owners truly have no one to blame but themselves, but the system isn't perfect and it needs to be 'idiot-proof'

Golbez is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 08:01 PM
  #7
Schenn02
Registered User
 
Schenn02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: abroad
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,732
vCash: 500
I'm on nobody's side. Really what irks me is this:

I remember the 2 sides, they were at the Leafs/Flyers game in the playoffs and they had an interview with CBC and they both said they were hockey fans and wanted a deal done. If they are such big hockey fans like they claim they are, they should get a $@#%ing deal done!

Schenn02 is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 08:09 PM
  #8
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,722
vCash: 500
Knob Goodenow and Gary Bettman will not be able to get a deal done... one or both will have to be fired! Then you may see a deal get done.

BLONG7 is online now  
Old
05-23-2004, 09:17 PM
  #9
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
Meh, both sides have their evils. The players don't want to give up their high paying contracts (really, if you got that much, would you give it up? similar to sillyass government contracts...if you live in BC you know what I'm talking about). The owners won't admit they were complete morons about their spending habits, just killing a market system that would work if they spent wisely. But again, theory doesn't necessarily translate well into practice.

Then you've got the NHLPA, who's complaining about the fact the NHL wants to reduce the size of the goalie pads and the PA wasn't consulted. Umm, yeah, so let's say there are 600 players in the NHL and 60 are goalies. You're gonna listen to the 60 guys that complain about not being able to stop the puck as easily while the other 540 will get more money if they score more? How does this represent well? And the argument about safety is a bit weak IMO. Some of this stuff doesn't have to be all that big to stop a puck from injuring the goaltender...pad technology has come a long way since the days of water absorbing leather. Heck, Phil Esposito said on Satellite Hotstove that his brother Tony's entire catching glove fits in just the webbing of a modern catching glove (probably exaggerating, but I don't think by a whole lot).

ehc73 is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 09:19 PM
  #10
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by futurcorerock
Ok, do you think players should have outlandish salaries under a no-cap; as the NHLPA might contest; though not in the same words

OR

Would you like a hard salary cap so the clubs are getting quality talent and arent worried about excessive salary, as the NHL would contest
define 'outlandish' 5 + million 6 + million? .... depends on what you're calling outlandish

a hard cap won't stop the top teams from getting more talent .... if a team like the avs or wings talks to a player about wanting to sign him, i'd say 9 out of 10 players would jump at the chance... it's happened in the past and IMO it won't stop if a cap goes into place, if a player wants to win the cup he's going to go to whoever has the best shot of winning, no matter what the cost

IMO no player should be worth more than 5 or 6 mil MAX, but when you get GM's like sather WAY overpaying for players it doesn't help matters any, because other players see a players who did less than he did making more and they say, i deserve more... etc. thus leading to the 10's of millions of dollars like yashin and jagr are making now, if players want money, great... if they want to collect a paycheck w/ hardly any work no way uh uh not gonna happen.... something needs to be done, but what? is the question

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 09:25 PM
  #11
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehc73
Meh, both sides have their evils. The players don't want to give up their high paying contracts (really, if you got that much, would you give it up? similar to sillyass government contracts...if you live in BC you know what I'm talking about). The owners won't admit they were complete morons about their spending habits, just killing a market system that would work if they spent wisely. But again, theory doesn't necessarily translate well into practice.

Then you've got the NHLPA, who's complaining about the fact the NHL wants to reduce the size of the goalie pads and the PA wasn't consulted. Umm, yeah, so let's say there are 600 players in the NHL and 60 are goalies. You're gonna listen to the 60 guys that complain about not being able to stop the puck as easily while the other 540 will get more money if they score more? How does this represent well? And the argument about safety is a bit weak IMO. Some of this stuff doesn't have to be all that big to stop a puck from injuring the goaltender...pad technology has come a long way since the days of water absorbing leather. Heck, Phil Esposito said on Satellite Hotstove that his brother Tony's entire catching glove fits in just the webbing of a modern catching glove (probably exaggerating, but I don't think by a whole lot).
back then, by what i've seen, the catching gloves weren't much bigger than a baseball mitt ( just a guestimation, if anyone knows for real, please correct me ), but the modern day as we've all seen is absolutely insane .... hell, reduce the webbing alone by even 25 - 50 % and you'd see a huge difference in the number of goals scored... now all you have to do is hold the catching glove out and it's almost guaranteed the puck is going to be in it, just a reduction in the webbing alone would be a good start at least, to seeing more goals scored

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 09:32 PM
  #12
billsandsabres
nhl 94 aficianado
 
billsandsabres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: troy, ny
Posts: 2,239
vCash: 500
i think both sides should be ashamed if a deal is not done; the whole operation is an enemy if there is a strike, from bettman to goodenow to sakic to cale hulse, everybody

billsandsabres is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 09:35 PM
  #13
Pure Rock Fury*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Country: Philippine
Posts: 14,118
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Pure Rock Fury*
I think both sides are evil. Hockey isn't a business. People play because they love the game. If they're upset that they'll only make a six figure salary, then I don't think they belong in this sport. I feel that all professional athletes are the same in this sense, not just hockey players.

Pure Rock Fury* is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 09:45 PM
  #14
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,301
vCash: 500
I always back the little guy, but there are no little guy's in this. The lowest paid players make 6 figures, so I can't cry for any of them. They're not too worried about when their next bill might be paid. Then you have the owners, and they're obviously far richer than that.

It's a game. I know it's a business(which always takes the game out of sports), but it's the entertainment business. That's all it is. It's no more important than that. They're not saving lives doing what they do on the ice. They play a game every other night for a few hours. If they want to go on strike/lockout, be my guest. I can find other things to do for two and a half hours roughly 3 days a week. The NHL and NHLPA gotta do what they gotta do though.

There are too many problems in the world. This might be about the 1,876,298th thing on the to-do list. I hope they have a season next year. I enjoy the brief escape from reality. But if they don't, or if they never play another game again, that's fine too.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 01:34 AM
  #15
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
I'm on the side of the fan, but that's steering this topic in a whole other direction I suppose. Not really for or against one side, both have good points and both have bad points. All I'm looking for is a reasonable solution, however it comes about.

I still do believe that both sides will work hard to get this done, which usually happens in the 11th hour. I've always thought their pull their heads out their collective you-know-whats and at least begin the serious talks at the last moment. Maybe not getting it done exactly on time, but close enough to play most of the season. But now I'm a bit more skeptical.

Friend of mine up in Tennessee was having a conversation with the Preds owner (they do happen to know each other). Leipold told him it wasn't looking that good at the moment. We know of course that things could change in the next few months, never know what can happen. But when hearing that one of the owners didn't like how this entire situation is progressing, and the conversation was simply two friends talking and not any statement that was meant to be "press-friendly", then the skeptic in me comes out.

cws is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 01:48 AM
  #16
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank the Tank
I think both sides are evil. Hockey isn't a business. People play because they love the game. If they're upset that they'll only make a six figure salary, then I don't think they belong in this sport. I feel that all professional athletes are the same in this sense, not just hockey players.
Hockey itself isn't a business, I agree. It's a national pastime, a sport we all love.
However, organized hockey IS a business, just like all other professional sports (heck even the Jr teams are businesses). It's about the bottom line, and owners are there to make money. Make no mistake, while an owner can say he's doing it for the love of the game, no owner is happy about losing millions each year if his team isn't run well.

ehc73 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 03:27 AM
  #17
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
I look at it this way:

What's good for the players, is almost always *not* good for the game. Big goalie equipment, small suspensions, low fines, high salaries and the often corresponding lack of effort that follows, "union" games with no hitting because the other team is full of close friends, reduced schedule and travel eliminating intra-conference play, etc.

What's good for the owners is generally good for the game, and the fans. Higher profits can lead to a better team on the ice if they re-invest it into free agency etc. It can lead to better buildings to watch in. Better tv packages with more games televised. A more popular game leads to greater stability in the league, franchises don't go broke, move, etc.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 03:58 AM
  #18
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
I look at it this way:

What's good for the players, is almost always *not* good for the game. Big goalie equipment, small suspensions, low fines, high salaries and the often corresponding lack of effort that follows, "union" games with no hitting because the other team is full of close friends, reduced schedule and travel eliminating intra-conference play, etc.

What's good for the owners is generally good for the game, and the fans. Higher profits can lead to a better team on the ice if they re-invest it into free agency etc. It can lead to better buildings to watch in. Better tv packages with more games televised. A more popular game leads to greater stability in the league, franchises don't go broke, move, etc.
i think this just about sums it all up in a nutshell

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 10:50 AM
  #19
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
As a fan, I see the side(s) who have publically threatened to cancel next season as the enemy.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 11:07 AM
  #20
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
What's good for the owners is generally good for the game, and the fans.
That's such an incredibly naive and ignorant statement.

What's best for the owners is higher ticket prices, decreased availability of tickets and widespread willingness for fans to watch their team on pay per view television.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 01:16 PM
  #21
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
That's such an incredibly naive and ignorant statement.

What's best for the owners is higher ticket prices, decreased availability of tickets and widespread willingness for fans to watch their team on pay per view television.
if the huge salaries were gone, so would the need for higher ticket prices, frankly depending on how high they go, if the owners put the money right back into the team ( ie huge free agent signing ) then it wouldn't matter quite so much, but i'll stick with my original statement, with less $ to pay on salaries, the lower the ticket prices will go

just need to ask.... what is pay per view television? .... and as far as i know, there aren't ANY games that go on payperview, it'd be ridiculous and absurd if there were

edit: yes we pay for cable tv, but IMO that does not constitute payperview tv

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 01:40 PM
  #22
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
if the huge salaries were gone, so would the need for higher ticket prices, frankly depending on how high they go
Come on, you know that ticket prices are not directly pegged to player salaries but supply and demand.

Quote:
just need to ask.... what is pay per view television? .... and as far as i know, there aren't ANY games that go on payperview
Again, it seems you are underinformed.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 01:40 PM
  #23
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
if the huge salaries were gone, so would the need for higher ticket prices, frankly depending on how high they go, if the owners put the money right back into the team ( ie huge free agent signing ) then it wouldn't matter quite so much, but i'll stick with my original statement, with less $ to pay on salaries, the lower the ticket prices will go
I don't understand the logic of your statement. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you're saying that low salaries lead to higher profits for owners which then allows owners to reinvest money into the team in terms of signing UFA's. That statement is a complete contradiction. If owners use their profits towards free agents then the salaries of free agents will go up, therefore leading the salaries of all players to eventually go up, and the owners profits will be wiped out.

Vito Andolini is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 02:32 PM
  #24
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billsandsabres
i think both sides should be ashamed if a deal is not done; the whole operation is an enemy if there is a strike, from bettman to goodenow to sakic to cale hulse, everybody
NOT CALE HULSE!



Both are the enemy of hockey if they can't get a deal done.

I don't think the NHL is lying that they need cost certainty (read: salary cap, luxery tax, non-guarenteed contracts, etc..), but I dont think the NHLPA is lying either when they say the NHL isn't losing as much money as they'd have you believe.

Mizral is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 02:47 PM
  #25
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini
I don't understand the logic of your statement. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you're saying that low salaries lead to higher profits for owners which then allows owners to reinvest money into the team in terms of signing UFA's. That statement is a complete contradiction. If owners use their profits towards free agents then the salaries of free agents will go up, therefore leading the salaries of all players to eventually go up, and the owners profits will be wiped out.
i used ufa's as one example, but w/ a little more revenue coming onto their pockets they could do many things to help the team in many other ways new lockerroom training equip... etc.

garry1221 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 10:33 AM.

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.