HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
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
05-24-2004, 02:15 PM
  #26
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,555
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
.... 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
Maybe he means something like NHL Center Ice, which isn't exactly pay-per-view, but it is similar, anyhow.

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 02:42 PM
  #27
rwilson99
Registered User
 
rwilson99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TAMPA, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_paxon
Maybe he means something like NHL Center Ice, which isn't exactly pay-per-view, but it is similar, anyhow.
PPV is the rule in Chicago. Want to watch a road game. It's $9.95 a pop.

Home games are not televised.

:bonk:

rwilson99 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 02:42 PM
  #28
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_paxon
Maybe he means something like NHL Center Ice, which isn't exactly pay-per-view, but it is similar, anyhow.
Sigh. This stuff is easy to look up, guys.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 02:57 PM
  #29
Terrier
Registered User
 
Terrier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 2,572
vCash: 500
If a choice is required, I'll take the NHLPA. While I have a bone to pick with the owners who stupidly let this league overexpand, the players are on a gravy train that needs to slow down. The average NHL salary in 2002-2003 was $1.79 million, compared to $1.26 million for the NFL.

Terrier is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 03:08 PM
  #30
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
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.
we are talking about the NHL here, I dont think any players are getting changed next to dead rats or anything, unless they are in Florida.

I hope you have better uses for that extra profit, because incase you haven't realized it, any profits the owners gain, goes straight into their pockets.

Vito Andolini is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 04:02 PM
  #31
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini
I hope you have better uses for that extra profit, because incase you haven't realized it, any profits the owners gain, goes straight into their pockets.
Which is *still* a positive for you, the fan. Is your owner shopping your team around, trying to gut the expensive players, trying to move it to another city when he's making money hand over fist? Hardly.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 04:07 PM
  #32
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
why is PPV such a big deal? Theres a reason its on there, because people will pay to watch hockey. If they didnt pay for it, why would it exist?

In some way shape or form, your money to watch PPV is going back into the team
that's supporting your club. You do want to support your club, riiiiight?

HOWEVER,

you also in turn support the cable provider, owners, etc. so if this is a problem, go lobby with congress/parliament; in short, do something about it

Plus, isnt PPV commercial-free. There you go, no TV timeouts, no commercial-latent intermissions, etc.

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 04:31 PM
  #33
jerseydevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 500
I think that the players have to realize that television revenue is an enormous part of any game. The NHL does not make an enormous amount per team when all is said and done...Their salaries should not be on par with NFL players/NBA players/ or MLB players because the sport is just not as big in North America as a whole. The NHL does do very well at the gate but they are starting to price out the fans which, for a sport that does not do well on TV, is very dangerous. I don't care if it comes down to a Cap or a tax...but something has to be done...The pendulum has swung too far in favor of the players.

jerseydevil is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 04:37 PM
  #34
nordique
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Here's what the players should/would ask:

If an owner isn't making enough revenue to support high player salaries...why does he agree to pay such salaries in the first place?

Why should players have to forcibly do for the owners what they cannot do for themselves - rein in their salaries as expenses for owners?

If an owner makes $40 million in revenue, annually, why is he agreeing to $50 million worth of salaries for players? Hire an accountant. These are all millionaires hundreds of times over, surely they know how a balance sheet operates.

You don't want to pay Forsberg $11 million, Colorado? Fine, don't qualify him at $9 million or whatever it costs and see what the open market fetches. If he then signs in, say, Buffalo for $12 million per year and then the Sabres ownership group complains that salaries are too high...is that Forsberg's fault?

It's not collusion. That would be Bettman forcing the owners to rein in salaries through under the table negotiating like baseball did in the 1980s. Players will understand that if the salaries are dropping proportionate with the dropping of revenues, that's a function of economics...but if player salaries keep increasing while teams keep crying poor, well, something is off and it's not the players' fault!

 
Old
05-24-2004, 05:39 PM
  #35
ObeySteve
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Delaware County, PA
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ObeySteve
Personally, I think both are.

The NHL wants to put in a hard cap that would create the kind of socialistic, un-competitive system that is slowly plaguing the NFL.

THe NHLPA wants to do whatever it can to protect the ridiculously high and over-bearing salaries that NHL players make.

ObeySteve is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 05:46 PM
  #36
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Goodenow is a vampire. He is sucking hockey's blood. Soon, hockey may die because of Goodenow. :devil:

Just think 2 minutes...At the start, the syndical was there to protect the players interest & make sure they earn enough money so they can feed their family and have a respectable life.

Now, when you see a goon earning 1.5 millions a year. WTF? 1.8 millions is the average salaries of NHL players.

Now look at their car, BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, Lexus, Hummer....Everyones...
Even rookies can earn a lot of money. Look at MAF. 1 millions + incredible bonuses.
Nobody know if he will be good or great.

Now all we want is a salary cap so we can keep things under control. It's always the same team who go after UFA (New York,Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, Philadelphia, Toronto).
It's not good for the sport.

Now we are lucky to have 2 small market reaching the finals ( CGY, TB ). Now that's hockey...


Last edited by EaGLE1: 05-24-2004 at 05:54 PM.
EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 06:11 PM
  #37
Leaf Lander
Registered User
 
Leaf Lander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BWO Headquarters
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,704
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Leaf Lander Send a message via MSN to Leaf Lander
make the players vote every year on who the marquee players are on every team..the nchoose one from each position and have those player get one yr comtracts worth 8 mil a yr

6 players make 8 mil all on dif teams

Top player per team gets 7 mil -if they been in the league for 5 yrs

League minumns of 500 k 1mil if u been in league for 5 rs

1st line LW 5 Million c 3 Million rw 3 Million
1st line LW 2- Million C 2 mil RW 2 Million
1st line LW 1 -Million C - 1.5 mil RW 500 k
1st line LW 500 k C 1 Million RW 500 k

22 MILLION

Dman
1ST Pairing LD 3.5 Million RD 2.5 Million
2nd Pairing LD 1 Million RD 1.5 Million
3rd Pairing LD 1 Million RD 500k

10 MIL


# 1 Goalie 6. mil
#2 Goalie 1 mil

7 mil

39 mil team

no one else could make over 5 mil per season and league minmun salary would be 1 mil if u are in league for 5 yrs or more.



40 mil Team salary

Leaf Lander is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 06:19 PM
  #38
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Here's what the players should/would ask:

If an owner isn't making enough revenue to support high player salaries...why does he agree to pay such salaries in the first place?

Why should players have to forcibly do for the owners what they cannot do for themselves - rein in their salaries as expenses for owners?

If an owner makes $40 million in revenue, annually, why is he agreeing to $50 million worth of salaries for players? Hire an accountant. These are all millionaires hundreds of times over, surely they know how a balance sheet operates.

You don't want to pay Forsberg $11 million, Colorado? Fine, don't qualify him at $9 million or whatever it costs and see what the open market fetches. If he then signs in, say, Buffalo for $12 million per year and then the Sabres ownership group complains that salaries are too high...is that Forsberg's fault?

It's not collusion. That would be Bettman forcing the owners to rein in salaries through under the table negotiating like baseball did in the 1980s. Players will understand that if the salaries are dropping proportionate with the dropping of revenues, that's a function of economics...but if player salaries keep increasing while teams keep crying poor, well, something is off and it's not the players' fault!
You might be the smartest guy on the board, well maybe second smartest cause i've been saying this for years.

Seriously though for a second the fact of the matter is:

1) Salary Cap will not lower ticket prices. If you believe this you are an Idiot!!!!
2) As a owner if you cannot turn a profit with the millions of dollars generated in revenue, well then you are not a very good businessman and maybe you should sell your team to someone who is.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 06:43 PM
  #39
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 rwilson99
PPV is the rule in Chicago. Want to watch a road game. It's $9.95 a pop.

Home games are not televised.

:bonk:
wirtz is an excception to the rule obviously, his lack of tv broadcasts in chicago definitely hurt their franchise, with the money that could be made w/ tv broadcasts they could have extra money coming in, frankly i can't believe the league lets things like this happen, it's a sad scenario and one that should end soon, for the good of the team

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 06:55 PM
  #40
ObeySteve
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Delaware County, PA
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ObeySteve
GW, that was quite possible the dumbest idea I've ever seen you post, and I've seen a lot of dumb things from you before.

Yours makes the assumption that teams rosters are generally equal for the most part, in talent, depth, and everything....which couldn't be further from the truth.

ObeySteve is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 06:56 PM
  #41
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 Beakermania
You might be the smartest guy on the board, well maybe second smartest cause i've been saying this for years.

Seriously though for a second the fact of the matter is:

1) Salary Cap will not lower ticket prices. If you believe this you are an Idiot!!!!
2) As a owner if you cannot turn a profit with the millions of dollars generated in revenue, well then you are not a very good businessman and maybe you should sell your team to someone who is.
just a couple thoughts to go along there, say there is a cap and yet ticket prices for TEAM X stay the same, lets say the on ice product is the same as it was a year ago or for the last two years.... fans of TEAM X will be demanding to know what is being done to better the team they're paying good money to see, it's up to the owners and management to put the best team they can on the ice, with a cap the salaries will be reigned in, but if TEAM X doesn't show any kind of progress towards a better team, be it drafting or FA signings, eventually the fans will be up in arms enough to tell the owners they can do what they want but they'll have less money to do it with. is that what you want to see happen to the league? I used TEAM X but in reality you can insert any team in there and use it, the nashville predators lowered ticket prices last year if i remember right, for just that reason. then the ownership said they'd give the fans some kind of refund if they didn't make the playoffs this year, can't remember what it exactly was, but the fans sure backed their team and look what happened, granted it was an early exit, but they made it to the playoffs all the same

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 06:59 PM
  #42
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
The only thing that will lower ticket prices is for demand for tickets to drop, not a salary cap.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 07:23 PM
  #43
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Here's what the players should/would ask:

If an owner isn't making enough revenue to support high player salaries...why does he agree to pay such salaries in the first place?

Why should players have to forcibly do for the owners what they cannot do for themselves - rein in their salaries as expenses for owners?

If an owner makes $40 million in revenue, annually, why is he agreeing to $50 million worth of salaries for players? Hire an accountant. These are all millionaires hundreds of times over, surely they know how a balance sheet operates.

You don't want to pay Forsberg $11 million, Colorado? Fine, don't qualify him at $9 million or whatever it costs and see what the open market fetches. If he then signs in, say, Buffalo for $12 million per year and then the Sabres ownership group complains that salaries are too high...is that Forsberg's fault?

It's not collusion. That would be Bettman forcing the owners to rein in salaries through under the table negotiating like baseball did in the 1980s. Players will understand that if the salaries are dropping proportionate with the dropping of revenues, that's a function of economics...but if player salaries keep increasing while teams keep crying poor, well, something is off and it's not the players' fault!
The answer to pretty much all of the above is that in order to have any chance of being competetive, you have to pay the going rate. That rate is set by the markets with the most money. If you don't want to pay a player the same as a guy with similar stats in one of the major markets, the player holds out. This costs the owner money because he doesn't have a quality player in the line up resulting in the team being less competetive (less fan interest, less tickets sold) and also angers a portion of the fan base that thinks it's okay for owners to lose money since they are so rich anyway.

The owners are in a bit of a bind. The owner has to pay player A $4M a season to remain competetive and have any chance of getting fans in the arena. However, that doesn't guarantee competetiveness, since player A may be so happy with his big contract, he doesn't have to play too hard. The owner can always trade player A for a lesser player or prospects, but that has the same results as the player holding out.

Meanwhile the players are collecting their money, and the only risk they take is getting injured. There is no penalty for not playing well. Often you see a player is not quite as good as he was the year he was playing for his big contract, but he manages to turn it up when it's time to start working on his next contract.

The owners basically have to pay out the money and hope the players live up to their contracts. The owners have to take a huge risk by paying large salaries, and are at the mercy of the players doing their jobs to get the fans in the stands. And what about if a star player gets injured? The player still gets his salary, but the owner does not get reimbursed for fans not showing up because the team is less competetive (the owner does get part of the salary paid by insurance, but not the entire salary, and not all the players are covered).

Consider this: The Buffalo Sabres lost about $10M on a $34M budget. If they reduce their budget to $24M, they have to get rid of Satan, Zhitnik, and Drury. They will get some prospects to replace them. Will this allow the Sabres to break even? Probably not. To reduce the losses, they had to get rid of most of their name players. They didn't make the playoffs with the name players, do you really think they will make the playoffs without them? Most likely, they will lose more games, which means they will lose more fans, and will probably lose more money.

The owners take almost all the risks, and get little return. The players take some risks (injury) but get a very good return. Why should the owners have to put up with that?

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 07:52 PM
  #44
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 Beakermania
The only thing that will lower ticket prices is for demand for tickets to drop, not a salary cap.
so by the supply/demand concept, a team like the avs/wings could keep raising ticket prices every year til they reach 100 dollars or more and people would still come to watch .... i've got news for ya .... ticket prices become astronomical like that and there isn't any way in hell that people would come to the game then, supply/demand may hold some water, but it isn't the main reason, as i said about nashville, they've got the supply/demand but the owners themselves told their fans that they'd do some sort of refund if the preds didn't make the playoffs, frankly no matter wheter nashville's a hockey hotbed or not, that wouldn't go to supply/demand, that goes directly with if we don't produce a good product then we'll give our fans who came to see a good product back some money

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 08:14 PM
  #45
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
The only thing that will lower ticket prices is for demand for tickets to drop, not a salary cap.

You are only looking at half of the equation. Let me ask, what makes the ticket prices go up? Answer: Teams need more money to pay the payrolls, so they try and get it from the fans. It might be naive to the think the prices will go down if there is a cap, but they should stay lower than they otherwise would if salary stay inflated.

me2 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 08:43 PM
  #46
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
That's such an incredibly naive and ignorant statement.
What an incredibly wide reaching and ignorant statement, not to mention the total lack of supporting arguments.

Quote:
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.
Don't confuse higher profits with higher ticket prices. Higher ticket prices don't increase demand for tickets, they *decrease* it. Being forced to raise ticket prices to try and cover losses is not good for owners. It's articificial. You want to raise prices when demand is high, and the market will support it.

As for PPV, I despise it completely. And please note when this vile thing arrived in Vancouver? Was it during the profitable times? No, it arrived a few years ago when the team was losing money by the bucketfulls, and they were desperate to add as many new revenue streams as possible. Same thing in Ottawa I believe, it didn't arrive until after their bankruptcy.

How about some actual data to support your opinions? Show us how unhappy the fans of the profitable teams are. Show us the Detroit's, Colorado's and Toronto's with the massive pay per view packages. Show us the unhappy fans because their team won the Stanley Cup recently.

'Cause I look around, and in general, the fans of the profitable teams are pretty damn happy.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 09:30 PM
  #47
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,555
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
Sigh. This stuff is easy to look up, guys.
I don't know why you and the other guy quoted me instead of the original poster. He is the one who said such things, to his knowledge, don't exist. I just gave an example of something like it that does exist.

And I was aware Chicago has ppv for road games. Wasn't aware the Canucks did anything like that. Quite shocking really that a Canadian team would have to do this. Are the Nucks in a bad spot?

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 09:33 PM
  #48
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
You are only looking at half of the equation. Let me ask, what makes the ticket prices go up? Answer: Teams need more money to pay the payrolls, so they try and get it from the fans.
Wrong.

Demand for tickets makes the prices go up.

There is no well run business that sets prices to chase costs. Firms set prices to maximize revenues. There is an optimal price point for every business and to either increase or decrease the price would reduce revenues.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 09:43 PM
  #49
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Don't confuse higher profits with higher ticket prices. Higher ticket prices don't increase demand for tickets, they *decrease* it. Being forced to raise ticket prices to try and cover losses is not good for owners. It's articificial. You want to raise prices when demand is high, and the market will support it.
And the owners want demand increased so that they can charge higher prices. The owners are always trying to increase demand so that they can take more money out of the fans wallet.

Quote:
As for PPV, I despise it completely. And please note when this vile thing arrived in Vancouver? Was it during the profitable times? No, it arrived a few years ago when the team was losing money by the bucketfulls, and they were desperate to add as many new revenue streams as possible. Same thing in Ottawa I believe, it didn't arrive until after their bankruptcy.
Actually, the Canucks started PPV when they were a playoff team during the 2001-2 season.

Ottawa has yet to air a PPV game.

Quote:
How about some actual data to support your opinions? Show us how unhappy the fans of the profitable teams are. Show us the Detroit's, Colorado's and Toronto's with the massive pay per view packages. Show us the unhappy fans because their team won the Stanley Cup recently.

'Cause I look around, and in general, the fans of the profitable teams are pretty damn happy.
There are plenty of fans of those teams that wish their ticket prices were cheaper so that they could see their team play.

Toronto is expected to have games on their own tv station next year which fans will have to pay a monthly fee to watch.

The owners main objective is to get as much money out of the fans ' wallets as possible while the fans, like any group of smart consumers, would like to pay as little as possible for NHL hockey.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 10:24 PM
  #50
Leaf Lander
Registered User
 
Leaf Lander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BWO Headquarters
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,704
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Leaf Lander Send a message via MSN to Leaf Lander
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
GW, that was quite possible the dumbest idea I've ever seen you post, and I've seen a lot of dumb things from you before.

Yours makes the assumption that teams rosters are generally equal for the most part, in talent, depth, and everything....which couldn't be further from the truth.
lol thanks flyers fan

thats a skelton idea the rest can be built upon

what would u do to improve that salary structure

u can only iveso many players so much money.

maybe raise it to 50 ?

1st line LW 5 Million c 4.5 Million rw 4 Million
1st line LW 2.5- Million C 3 mil RW 2.5 Million
1st line LW 1 -Million C - 2 mil RW 1 Million
1st line LW 500 k C 1 Million RW 1 Million

24 MILLION

Dman
1ST Pairing LD 4 Million RD 4.5 Million
2nd Pairing LD 2 Million RD 2.5 Million
3rd Pairing LD 1 Million RD 1 million

15 mil


# 1 Goalie 6. mil
#2 Goalie 1 mil

7 mil

46 million

39 40.4


Last edited by Leaf Lander: 05-24-2004 at 10:30 PM.
Leaf Lander 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 01:58 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.