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
05-27-2004, 11:12 PM
  #101
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
no player should be making over 5 or 6 mil.
and when you own a team, you will be free to not offer anything more than 5 or 6million.

why draw the line there ? i mean, really isnt $100k an enourmous amount of money ? why shuold they earn more than that ? how did you come up with the figure of 5 or 6 million ?

in reality though, why should they earn a penny less than another party is willing to pay ? does Jaromir Jagr make judgements on how much YOU should be paid ?

i think every professional athlete makes disgusting amounts of money and i believe they deserve every penny, not a penny more or a penny less. why do they deserve it ? because someone else in their own free will offered it.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-28-2004, 12:28 AM
  #102
nordique
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
I skipped most of the rest because it doesn't make much sense. The NHL owners know how to run their business. The fact that they're wealthy enough to afford an NHL franchise proves it. On the other hand, what have you done to try and teach them how to run a business?

Now, about cost certainty, I'd say that all business have some degree of cost certainty. Most of the time, the problem isn't that your costs change from year to year (like the inflation in the NHL system), it's that your sales/revenues aren't what you thought they were. If you can't plan your costs (costs certainty), then you really shouldn't be in business... Why do you think there are people whose jobs are to be costs specialists? If you can't control your costs, you're in deep trouble.

Like I wrote in other messages, in industries where there are labour unions, the most important thing if you want to be competitive is to negociate a good agreement for you. Looking back the last 10 years, do you think the last CBA is a good agreement for the owners? I don't think so.

Also, while in the past it was easier to build through the draft, it ain't as easy today. Rookies under the rookie cap often make upwards of $4M each, due to bonuses. And top rookies will want the "standard" contract, with plenty of bonuses or will go back in the next draft, which somehow forces the teams to sign them.

About your "hardware store" example, it's laughable, because you don't set your price based on your costs, but based on demand. The decision you need to take is whether with the current market conditions you can operate when you look at your costs.

New Jersey, despite having their arena only 3/4 full, has one of the highest budgets and one of the higher revenues in the league. Why? Because they make more money filling the rink 3/4 full than by lowering prices and fulling it.

While you're touting Nashville, it is rumoured to be a team that could die or move to another town.

You keep talking about the Rangers, but what about the other high salary teams? Sure, the Rangers are an awful mess, but the other top spenders did pretty well those last years. Can you explain why the teams that won the Stanley Cup the past ten years were all top 5 spenders in the league?
I'm not begrudging the right of the owners to lock out the players. It's certainly their prerogative. The league's played with no CBA in place but the owners are standing their ground and they're entitled.

As for cost certainty, let me put it to you this way. Teams are losing money because, allegedly, 75% of team expenses go to player salaries (which on its surface appears to be a ludicrous assertion).

Can't a team look at a balance sheet, say "hey, that's too freakin' much for me to be spending on salaries if I want to make a profit," cut their team salaries by whatever means necessary - boom, insta team in the black. And if every team except a few, as Bettman claims, are in this boat, then you have your de facto salary cap right there.

As for rookie signings, I have never, once in my life, heard of an NHL team drafting a player based on "signability" as they do in Major League Baseball for example. This is also why most teams in other sports agree to contract terms with the player they're picking before they actually pick them. How many players have benefited from re-entering the draft? Not many. Boynton and perhaps Stoll in recent memory. Paetsch, on the other hand, fell several rounds in the draft and lost a lot of bargaining power.

To address your other point, I have no idea what your argument really is trying to say. If New Jersey makes more profit why are they not allowed to invest in what evidently works as sound business strategy for them? Why are the players forced to arbitrarily limit their earning potential because the owners can't seem to find a way to sell their product? It's chicken-and-egg: New Jersey was never a major spender, they get good players through the draft and otherwise (draft: Brodeur, Niedermayer, Elias, Madden, Guerin/Arnott, White, etc.), and CHOOSE to invest in keeping them around to continue to try and maintain their budget. A salary cap would penalize them for being successful, which is weird. Don't we all lament the absence of dynasties like the Oilers of the 80s while people cry out for methods to prevent them from ever occurring again? So you'd have a salary cap with no free agency, basically returning to the dark ages of sport.

Bettman loves to use the NBA as a model for success. Well, the NBA cap basically makes player movement impossible, which keeps good teams good and bad teams bad. Hell of a lot of parity in that league:

NBA CHAMPIONS

2003 - San Antonio
2002 - LA Lakers
2001 - LA Lakers
2000 - LA Lakers
1999 - San Antonio
1998 - Chicago
1997 - Chicago
1996 - Chicago
1995 - Houston
1994 - Houston
1993 - Chicago
1992 - Chicago
1991 - Chicago
1990 - Detroit
1989 - Detroit
1988 - LA Lakers
1987 - LA Lakers
1986 - Boston
1985 - LA Lakers
1984 - Boston

So in the past 20 years, a whopping SIX franchises have won NBA championships. Then when you factor in that the Lakers have 8 titles from before then (14 total) and that the Celtics have 14 before then (16 total), it gets worse.

How about this. In the NHL, in the past 10 years alone, these teams have appeared in the Stanley Cup finals:

NY Rangers, Vancouver, New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado, Florida, Philadelphia, Washington, Dallas, Buffalo, Carolina, Anaheim, Calgary, Tampa Bay.

That's 14 teams, roughly half the league.

In the NBA, in the past 10 years, these teams have appeared in the NBA Finals:
San Antonio, New Jersey, LA Lakers, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Utah, Seattle, Orlando, Houston.

That's 10 teams, with the number to grow to 11 when either Detroit or Indiana win. Could go to 12 if Minnesota pulls of a miracle but unlikely.

So, in the league with the salary cap, fewer teams have reached the championship round and fewer have won the championship (only four franchises in the past 10 years have won in the NBA - San Antonio twice, Chicago three times, LA three times, Houston twice) - and LA has a great shot of extending that to four franchises in 11 years.

In the last 10 years of the Cup, it's been won by the Rangers, Devils, Avalanche, Stars, Red Wings, and this year by either the Lightning or Flames. That's a guaranteed six in the same time span.

So it appears that a salary cap is no great leveller. Hasn't seemed to help teams like Golden State, Atlanta, LA (Clip version), Milwaukee, Orlando, Toronto, Utah, New Orleans/Charlotte, Cleveland, Denver, Miami, etc. In fact, the cap prevents player transactions. Every year the NBA deadline comes and goes without a whisper because the cap prevents teams from making moves. The Raptors, for instance, are basically screwed until some contracts expire because Vince makes so much and they overspent on guys like Alvin Williams, Jerome Williams, Jalen Rose (well, they traded for his salary) and even Hakeem Olajuwon whose salary sat on the cap 2 years after his retirement. Consequently, interest in the Raptors has plummeted. They can't make trades to try and improve the team and they can't sign free agents because of the cap! If Larry Tanenbaum said to himself, "look, I need to show the fans of Toronto that our franchise is serious about winning", and wanted to sign a free agent of note, he can't do it! The most sought-after aspect of trade value is CAP ROOM in the NBA. Teams trade their entire roster to clear out cap room to sign free agents the FOLLOWING season. Atlanta, Chicago and Utah all tried it. What happened? NOBODY WANTED TO GO THERE BECAUSE THE TEAMS SUCKED. So the good teams get to keep their stars and the bad teams have to hope to hell their draft picks work out because player movement is impossible.

NBA owners have cost certainty when it comes to player salaries. Awesome. The players even agreed in the CBA to a clause ensuring that if the percentage of league expenditures that goes to player salaries crosses a certain threshold (I think it's half), they all give back a small amount of their salary! What a deal for the owners. "I'm sorry, Mr. O'Neal, but in spite of agreeing to pay you $10 million, your union said it was OK that we take back a few hundred grand because we just didn't have a good year this year." Think of that in a non-sports context and it sounds ludicrous.

In the NHL, with no salary cap, we have tons of player movement all over the place, which keeps things interesting and exciting. All the "good teams" you cited, teams that were in the higher echelon of salaries, were mostly built through the DRAFT. They didn't pull a Steinbrenner and sign every UFA in sight to ensure they won. The Leafs and Rangers have failed to win because they haven't supplemented their FA guys with HOMEGROWN TALENT.

NJ: Elias, Gomez, Madden, Niedermayer, Gionta, Pandolfo, White, Daneyko, Rupp, Brodeur - all drafted. They signed Nieuwendyk and were awarded Scott Stevens for the loss of Brendan Shanahan. Certainly not a team built through free agency or contributing to rising salaries.

DET: Yzerman, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Draper, McCarty, Dandeneault, Avery, Kuznetsov, Holmstrom. Going back further you can add in Konstantinov, Osgood, Primeau. They did sign Chelios, Robitaille, Hull and Hasek, granted. They're the most free spender of all these teams. They got Shanahan by dealing Keith Primeau, who they'd drafted. Schneider they traded for, giving up a high price (some high picks, Avery and Kuznetsov). The core of their team was still Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom. Drafted, drafted, drafted, and retained by paying what they're worth.

COL: Hejduk, Tanguay, Sakic, Foote, Drury, Skoula, Klemm, Aebischer drafted. Obtained Forsberg, Roy, Blake, Fleury for guys they'd drafted (Thibault, Deadmarsh, Regehr). Got Bourque at the deadline since he was retiring. Again, they spend money to keep the guys they've obtained through drafting and trading. Even this year signing Selanne and Kariya was done on the cheap, not because other teams couldn't afford to pay them.

DAL: Modano, Lehtinen, Hatcher, Sydor, Langenbrunner, Matvichuk drafted. Belfour signed after his stock had dropped (remember his stint in San Jose?). Nieuwendyk cost them Iginla. Hull they did sign. Zubov cost them Kevin Hatcher back when he was good. Again, the signings of Hull and Belfour to complement a drafted and traded team.

By comparison, in the NBA, where a team can win with 1-2 stars and 1-2 quality guys, signing one player CAN make a big difference. Look at Shaq and the Lakers. Look at T-Mac and Orlando (okay, they suck, but he's their whole team). In the NHL you can't build through free agency, you can only complement what you've already got. Keeping a good thing together costs money since all your players merit raises as they improve.

If owners didn't throw $5 million deals at the Martin Lapointes of the world, or 10-year $90 million deals for Alexei Yashin, they wouldn't be in this mess. Whose fault is that?


Last edited by nordique: 05-28-2004 at 12:32 AM.
 
Old
05-28-2004, 02:57 AM
  #103
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 DementedReality
and when you own a team, you will be free to not offer anything more than 5 or 6million.

why draw the line there ? i mean, really isnt $100k an enourmous amount of money ? why shuold they earn more than that ? how did you come up with the figure of 5 or 6 million ?

in reality though, why should they earn a penny less than another party is willing to pay ? does Jaromir Jagr make judgements on how much YOU should be paid ?

i think every professional athlete makes disgusting amounts of money and i believe they deserve every penny, not a penny more or a penny less. why do they deserve it ? because someone else in their own free will offered it.

dr
i say 5 - 6 mil just as an example, still alot yes, but obviously alot cheaper than 8,9,10 mil, fact of the matter like i said in my last post is if salaries aren't kept down, and as long as there's STUPID GM's like sather offering players double to triple their market value, then the problems for the NHL will never end, because as long as therre's even ONE stupid GM that overpays on a contract, we'll always see players saying well im better than him and he's getting X dollars so i want X plus more etc. granted setting a limit for the players would keep things down, but i also mentioned in another thread something else that could work a little more evenly without the set price on players... if the league set a max price each team can spend on UFA's we could see salaries start to be more reasonable, .... you argue the players deserve whatever a stupid gm wants to give him... ok it's a valid statement, but as i said, it takes one stupid gm to make everything harder for the other 29 gm's trying to keep within a budget... it's that one stupid gm that makes it harder, if not impossible for the smaller market teams to bring players to truly help that team, rather than just UFA's to fill spots since they can't afford the high level contracts, you seem to see things more from the players' side than the owners or league's side... (side note i just used sather as an example )

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 08:02 AM
  #104
TVanek26*
 
TVanek26*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,583
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TVanek26*
Well, it's a business for the owners for losing money.Do these unloyal player deserve ****?I am really disgusted with the NHLPA.

TVanek26* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 11:34 AM
  #105
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Well, Forbes magazine's sports economist, Jerry Orzanian, was on the radio the other day with John Wells and Bob McCown and he basically called the Levitt report a total joke, so that's good enough for me since I'm pretty sure he's not affiliated with the NHL or NHLPA.
Why did he call it a joke?

In my 30 years on this planet, I’ve learned that expert opinions are a dime a dozen. I do know that, in my industry, if my name is on a report with my stamp and signature, it better be right or I’m going to get my ass sued off. Especially if it is going to be used in nasty negotioations with a union headed by a lawyer. I’m sure the Levitt report is skewed a bit towards the owners, but if it’s a joke, the PA would be all over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Owning a hockey team is like owning any other business.

You have to have a B U D G E T.
Exactly. So what about the teams that dont have a budget, overpay players, and shift the payscale up for the rest of the league? Isnt a calary cap a forced budget?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
The point is that the owners are asking the players to save them from themselves. Owners want cost certainty? Name me ONE BUSINESS ON EARTH that has absolute cost certainty. Someone explain to me how the NHL improves by limiting the ability of the players to make salaries that the market will bear.
Name me a business that loses $200 million dollars and the millionaire employees say that there's nothing wrong. I have no problem with players making salaries the market can bear. But are we all in agreement that the NHL lost a bunch of money? $200 – $300 million are the rumored numbers? Lets say $200 million to be safe. It looks to me that the market can’t bear the salaries.

The owners got themselves into this mess. The players were all too eager to help them, and some players even caused it to get worse by holding their teams ransom. Now, when the owners want to correct their past mistakes, the players cross their arms and say “your mess, your problem”.

For the sport to survive, some kind of cost certainty needs to be in place. The players were quick to accept the contracts over the last 10 years, but are refusing to accept the fact(?) that 76% of revenues are going to salaries. I understand the players point of view – I’d be mad too if my earnings were limited – but if my employers were losing money paying me millions, I think I’d understand that its for the good of the whole.

It looks to me like the owners are trying to instill a league wide B U D G E T that the “market can bear”, and the players are refusing due to giving up their status quo.

Cawz is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 11:53 AM
  #106
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Why should players have to forcibly do for the owners what they cannot do for themselves - rein in their salaries as expenses for owners?
I just had to revisit this again. The real problem here is that the NHL and PA dont work together. The owners take the risk of buying a team, the players have the talent that is being showcased. The owners shouldnt have so many problems breaking even (or making a profit) and the players should be rewarded handsomly since their talent is something that is not easily replaceable.

In a perfect world, they should work together so that the owners make money for their risk, the players make money for their talent, and the only ones suffering is us sucker fans paying $7 a beer. Thats obviously not happening now (except for the $7 beer part), so its going to take a correction to fix it. Just because the players have been paid more than the owners can afford for the last decade doesnt mean they are giving up a huge concession. It means their salaries are being adjusted to reflect how much the team makes because of them.

So why should the players have to help the owners? Because everyone needs everyone else (players need the owners, owners need the players) and the salaries have to better reflect the revenues they bring in. From everything I've heard, they do not. And doing nothing, saying "too bad, its the owners fault" doesnt help the sport.


Last edited by Cawz: 05-28-2004 at 12:03 PM.
Cawz is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 12:37 PM
  #107
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 Cawz
I just had to revisit this again. The real problem here is that the NHL and PA dont work together. The owners take the risk of buying a team, the players have the talent that is being showcased. The owners shouldnt have so many problems breaking even (or making a profit) and the players should be rewarded handsomly since their talent is something that is not easily replaceable.

In a perfect world, they should work together so that the owners make money for their risk, the players make money for their talent, and the only ones suffering is us sucker fans paying $7 a beer. Thats obviously not happening now (except for the $7 beer part), so its going to take a correction to fix it. Just because the players have been paid more than the owners can afford for the last decade doesnt mean they are giving up a huge concession. It means their salaries are being adjusted to reflect how much the team makes because of them.

So why should the players have to help the owners? Because everyone needs everyone else (players need the owners, owners need the players) and the salaries have to better reflect the revenues they bring in. From everything I've heard, they do not. And doing nothing, saying "too bad, its the owners fault" doesnt help the sport.
i think this post reflects alot of what i tried to get out but couldn't find the right words to

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 12:38 PM
  #108
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
It looks to me that the market can’t bear the salaries..
simple .. pay the players less ?

why cant the owners do this ? if they just dont offer the players the contracts, they cant make the money.

brian burke said it himself yesterday on OTR, the players dont come to the table with a gun. the teams freely hand over the contracts.

seriously, DAL/NYR/DET etc ..can only pay so many players, they ALL cant sign with NYR and if hte market is has a glut of players looking for work, the $$'s will come down.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-28-2004, 12:50 PM
  #109
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
I just had to revisit this again. The real problem here is that the NHL and PA dont work together. The owners take the risk of buying a team, the players have the talent that is being showcased. The owners shouldnt have so many problems breaking even (or making a profit) and the players should be rewarded handsomly since their talent is something that is not easily replaceable.

In a perfect world, they should work together so that the owners make money for their risk, the players make money for their talent, and the only ones suffering is us sucker fans paying $7 a beer. Thats obviously not happening now (except for the $7 beer part), so its going to take a correction to fix it. Just because the players have been paid more than the owners can afford for the last decade doesnt mean they are giving up a huge concession. It means their salaries are being adjusted to reflect how much the team makes because of them.

So why should the players have to help the owners? Because everyone needs everyone else (players need the owners, owners need the players) and the salaries have to better reflect the revenues they bring in. From everything I've heard, they do not. And doing nothing, saying "too bad, its the owners fault" doesnt help the sport.
look, the players are willing to negotiate a system that helps the owners correct some of their mistakes. they just arent willing to tie their salaries to the hands of people who are:

a) either completly inept
or
b) are lyers

which is it. if the NHL cant make money with a 2 billion dollar enterprise they are either a or b (or both ?). the players are simply saying we arent interested in being partners, pay us what you think is fair and run your own business, we dont want any part of being your partner

what other business puts the responsiblity of builidng a "profit model" in the hands of the field workers and not in the hands of the managment ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-28-2004, 01:19 PM
  #110
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
simple .. pay the players less ?

why cant the owners do this ? if they just dont offer the players the contracts, they cant make the money.

brian burke said it himself yesterday on OTR, the players dont come to the table with a gun. the teams freely hand over the contracts.

seriously, DAL/NYR/DET etc ..can only pay so many players, they ALL cant sign with NYR and if hte market is has a glut of players looking for work, the $$'s will come down.

dr
It's the agents that come to the table with a gun. I believe the analogy someone had earlier of holding a team for ransom until certain demands are met fits in well here. But that's another tangent to this debate.

The teams are in the business of winning a Stanley Cup, all 30 of them. That's the primary goal and focus of all teams. If the focus of one is the bottom line, then they really need to get out of the NHL, for everyone's sake.

This then becomes a balancing act of sorts. You are in business to make money, but in this industry the main focus is still on winning. If the market as it is now dictates or forces you to over-extend your finances, then you will likely do so if you believe it gives your team a better chance of winning. Running a successful business isn't about standing pat, it's about taking calculated risks to acheive your goals. Teams are willing to sacrifice that money if they feel it gives them a better chance to get the Cup. Not the best plan in the world, at least from a strict business and/or financial view. But remember, this is an atypical industry in many respects. What we consider a normal outlook on business often times does not apply to an entity in the sports entertainment industry. Just set a few preconceptions aside and look at it from a different angle, and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at.

I could use the above statements and argue that the players are taking advantage of the fact that the owners desperately want to win, and the owners will over-spend in an effort to do just that. I could, but I won't. That's not entirely fair to the players, too many smaller considerations would likely get left out. Contrary to what I might sound like at times, I'm not pro-owner on this issue. I'm not pro-player either. In their own special ways, both parties have helped to create this quagmire we see before us. Both need to get over this posturing phase of union negotiating, and discuss. Throw all their egos in a bag, sit down and have constructive dialogue. I know, that's a pipe dream, especially the constructive part.

But I really don't care. All I want to see are 30 (relatively) financially healthy teams for the present and the near future playing hockey come October. How we get to that point, I don't give a damn right now. Just get me there.

cws is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 01:56 PM
  #111
nordique
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Why did he call it a joke?

In my 30 years on this planet, I’ve learned that expert opinions are a dime a dozen. I do know that, in my industry, if my name is on a report with my stamp and signature, it better be right or I’m going to get my ass sued off. Especially if it is going to be used in nasty negotioations with a union headed by a lawyer. I’m sure the Levitt report is skewed a bit towards the owners, but if it’s a joke, the PA would be all over it.

Exactly. So what about the teams that dont have a budget, overpay players, and shift the payscale up for the rest of the league? Isnt a calary cap a forced budget?

Name me a business that loses $200 million dollars and the millionaire employees say that there's nothing wrong. I have no problem with players making salaries the market can bear. But are we all in agreement that the NHL lost a bunch of money? $200 – $300 million are the rumored numbers? Lets say $200 million to be safe. It looks to me that the market can’t bear the salaries.

The owners got themselves into this mess. The players were all too eager to help them, and some players even caused it to get worse by holding their teams ransom. Now, when the owners want to correct their past mistakes, the players cross their arms and say “your mess, your problem”.

For the sport to survive, some kind of cost certainty needs to be in place. The players were quick to accept the contracts over the last 10 years, but are refusing to accept the fact(?) that 76% of revenues are going to salaries. I understand the players point of view – I’d be mad too if my earnings were limited – but if my employers were losing money paying me millions, I think I’d understand that its for the good of the whole.

It looks to me like the owners are trying to instill a league wide B U D G E T that the “market can bear”, and the players are refusing due to giving up their status quo.
#1 - the PA has been all over the Levitt report.

Goodenow on Levitt

#2 - it's not the responsibility of the employees of a corporation to regulate the marketplace. It's the responsibility of the owners. Escalating salaries was a result of owners paying what they felt they could bear. If they can't bear it anymore, they won't pay it anymore. Simple as that. Why does there need to be an aritificial system in place? What's in it for the players? If Boston really felt that Martin Lapointe was worth $5 million per season, that's their assessment. A player is worth what someone is willing to pay him, no more and no less. The owners want to fix their mistakes, and that's fine - but they're basically asking the players to do it for them. That is backwards.

Explain to me the problem with the current system as it relates to player salaries and why a cap is *NECESSARY* to correct this problem. Are these multimillionaire owners so horrible at managing their finances that they can't stop themselves from saying "no, that's too much"? Is it the obligation of the player to do it for them? Who held Charles Wang at gunpoint and said that he had to offer Alexei Yashin an insane contract for insane money for insane years? He made a big mistake with his money. Should Yashin give half of it back? If a player makes the league minimum and has a great year, he doesn't automatically get a raise from the owner if he still has time on his contract!

Again, Darryl Sutter said the other day "our team operates with a cap". They have a limit from their owner on what they can spend to be financially feasible. Every team, theoretically, should have this. If all the teams are really losing so much money, the contract numbers would come down because owners wouldn't be able to pay it. I'm damn sure that if my team is losing money hand over fist I don't turn around and hand out fat contracts to further increase my losses.

Or, to wit, if the owners are as smart as they must be, how did they get themselves into this mess and why can't they get themselves out of it on their own?

 
Old
05-28-2004, 02:57 PM
  #112
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 cwsieben
It's the agents that come to the table with a gun. I believe the analogy someone had earlier of holding a team for ransom until certain demands are met fits in well here. But that's another tangent to this debate.

The teams are in the business of winning a Stanley Cup, all 30 of them. That's the primary goal and focus of all teams. If the focus of one is the bottom line, then they really need to get out of the NHL, for everyone's sake.

This then becomes a balancing act of sorts. You are in business to make money, but in this industry the main focus is still on winning. If the market as it is now dictates or forces you to over-extend your finances, then you will likely do so if you believe it gives your team a better chance of winning. Running a successful business isn't about standing pat, it's about taking calculated risks to acheive your goals. Teams are willing to sacrifice that money if they feel it gives them a better chance to get the Cup. Not the best plan in the world, at least from a strict business and/or financial view. But remember, this is an atypical industry in many respects. What we consider a normal outlook on business often times does not apply to an entity in the sports entertainment industry. Just set a few preconceptions aside and look at it from a different angle, and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at.

I could use the above statements and argue that the players are taking advantage of the fact that the owners desperately want to win, and the owners will over-spend in an effort to do just that. I could, but I won't. That's not entirely fair to the players, too many smaller considerations would likely get left out. Contrary to what I might sound like at times, I'm not pro-owner on this issue. I'm not pro-player either. In their own special ways, both parties have helped to create this quagmire we see before us. Both need to get over this posturing phase of union negotiating, and discuss. Throw all their egos in a bag, sit down and have constructive dialogue. I know, that's a pipe dream, especially the constructive part.

But I really don't care. All I want to see are 30 (relatively) financially healthy teams for the present and the near future playing hockey come October. How we get to that point, I don't give a damn right now. Just get me there.
i believe you just hit the jackpot... the one untouched area that is probably most vital to the insane contracts... the AGENTS ... they get a certain percentage of their clients' salaries.... IMO that's gone a long way to some of these insane numbers today, when you have agents getting a 10% cut of the salary ( or whatever it is ) of course they're gonna demand the most for their client so they can line their own pockets with even more money... the biggest theives out there, yet it's their jobs ... how sad is that... im not sure where it's stated that agents have to get x% of the contract... is that in the contract they sign w/ their clients or what?... personally i'd say give the agents a flat 5 - 10k per contract

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 03:07 PM
  #113
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
simple .. pay the players less ?

why cant the owners do this ? if they just dont offer the players the contracts, they cant make the money.
Nothing is simple in a 2 billion dollar industry. So then, what if the players dont want to sign for less? The team suffers and loses revenue. I earlier brought up Minnesota and Edmonton as examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the players are simply saying we arent interested in being partners, pay us what you think is fair and run your own business, we dont want any part of being your partner
Players wont always sign for what the owners think is fair. If so, we wouldnt have arbitration. If the players dont want to be partners, then to hell with the NHL. I dont think they are actually saying that though, since that would be saying they are more importatnt than the state of the league. It benefits everyone to have a league that works for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
#1 - the PA has been all over the Levitt report.
Thats about as much propaganda as anything the NHL is saying. If your not going to believe any numbers thrown out by the NHL, why would you believe the union?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
#2 - it's not the responsibility of the employees of a corporation to regulate the marketplace. It's the responsibility of the owners. Escalating salaries was a result of owners paying what they felt they could bear. If they can't bear it anymore, they won't pay it anymore. Simple as that.
Its not simple. If every owner was on the same page, it would be simple, but it takes only 1 stupid owner to throw everythign out of whack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
A player is worth what someone is willing to pay him, no more and no less.
How about "a player is worth what they are willing to sign for". Youre totally ignoring the fact that some players hold out for more money, just the way some owners pay ridiculas contracts. Most players and owners are reasonable. It only takes a few bad apples to ruin my pie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Again, Darryl Sutter said the other day "our team operates with a cap". They have a limit from their owner on what they can spend to be financially feasible. Every team, theoretically, should have this. If all the teams are really losing so much money, the contract numbers would come down because owners wouldn't be able to pay it. I'm damn sure that if my team is losing money hand over fist I don't turn around and hand out fat contracts to further increase my losses.

Or, to wit, if the owners are as smart as they must be, how did they get themselves into this mess and why can't they get themselves out of it on their own?
So Calgary operates within a cap. So does Edmonton, Minnesota and probably 20 other teams. Those arent the teams causing the problems. Those are the responsible teams.

Each team, theoretically should do this. I agree. But it would be called collusion. The league should have an agreement that no team can sign contracts unless they can prove they have the revenue to support it. I dont think there has to be a cap. There has to be cost certanty. If a team spends more because they make more, thats fine. If a team spends more to try to make more, and fails, then thats where the problems start.

So how about instead of a cap, get rid of guaranteed contracts (its a simple way to cut costs - by trimming the fat). How about any teams that spends more than their revenue, the team is disbanded and the players are distributed around the rest of the league (its a simple way to get rid of the stupid owners that cant controll themselves). How about any player that refuses a 10% qualifying offer is kicked out of the nhl (its a simple way to ensure that "a player is worth what someone is willing to pay him"). How about any player that chumps out on a signed contract is shot in the kneecaps (Its a simple way to get rid of the biggest deadbeat in the NHL).

And if you were an owner and your team was losing money hand over fist and you didnt hand out fat contracts, then how many fans do you think you would come to watch your AHL caliber team? You have to spend money to make money. Its a fine line and its NOT SIMPLE as some people seem to think. Anyone who thinks this is simple needs some experience in the business world. Each team is a multi-million dollar operation.

Ok, I have to get some work done now.

Cawz is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 03:12 PM
  #114
TheZodiac
Registered User
 
TheZodiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 273
vCash: 500
Both
Owners = Stupid ( ie: paying Holik $9 million/yr!!!! WTF!!! )

NHLPA = Greedy union leader (No matter what money was offered to players, he would advise to hold out for more, Goodenow was furious when Brodeaur signed for about 6 Million/year with NJ when he could have got 9 Million/yr, fortunatley Brodeaur told him to shove it.

TheZodiac is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 03:20 PM
  #115
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Thats about as much propaganda as anything the NHL is saying. If your not going to believe any numbers thrown out by the NHL, why would you believe the union?
Because, unlike the owners, Bob Goodenow's PA has never been proven to be liars and criminals.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 03:30 PM
  #116
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Because, unlike the owners, Bob Goodenow's PA has never been proven to be liars and criminals.
What?!? Knobs a lawyer. Thats even worse.

Cawz is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 04:33 PM
  #117
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
simple .. pay the players less ?

why cant the owners do this ? if they just dont offer the players the contracts, they cant make the money.
Care to explain how to do that? The system *doesn't allow* you to offer a player less than he is currently making. If he's making less than the average salary, he gets a forced 10% raise. If he's making more, the lowest you can offer him is what he currently makes.

If you don't offer that, the player walks away as a complete unrestricted free agent, and you've flushed an asset down the drain. This is rarely a path worth pursuing, now you've got to pay or trade for a replacement.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 04:34 PM
  #118
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
#1 - the PA has been all over the Levitt report.

Goodenow on Levitt

So, the opinion of one person is all it takes to refute the opinion of an auditor that in all likelyhood can't be bought... And then the NHL has income streams that the NFL and the NBA don't count? If you do add those streams to the NFL and NBA economics, the players end up with a considerably small percentage of the income, increasing the difference between the percentage NHL players make and the percentage players in other leagues make.

#2 - it's not the responsibility of the employees of a corporation to regulate the marketplace. It's the responsibility of the owners. Escalating salaries was a result of owners paying what they felt they could bear. If they can't bear it anymore, they won't pay it anymore. Simple as that. Why does there need to be an aritificial system in place? What's in it for the players? If Boston really felt that Martin Lapointe was worth $5 million per season, that's their assessment. A player is worth what someone is willing to pay him, no more and no less. The owners want to fix their mistakes, and that's fine - but they're basically asking the players to do it for them. That is backwards.

We already have an artificial system. The NHL is not a free market. In a free market, anyone can decide to start up a team and join the NHL. That obviously does not happen. In a free market, you can hire anyone to fill a position. In the NHL, a player has to go through the draft, so the available talent is limited. (artificially, one might say)

And under the current system, the players do regulate the marketplace much more than they should be able to. When a player holds out or refuses to sign, the owner loses revenue. If the player does not play up to the level he should, the owner loses revenue, if a plaer forces a trade, the owner loses revenue. The owners lose money in almost every case unless they meet the players demands, and in many cases, even if they do meet the players demands.


Explain to me the problem with the current system as it relates to player salaries and why a cap is *NECESSARY* to correct this problem. Are these multimillionaire owners so horrible at managing their finances that they can't stop themselves from saying "no, that's too much"? Is it the obligation of the player to do it for them? Who held Charles Wang at gunpoint and said that he had to offer Alexei Yashin an insane contract for insane money for insane years? He made a big mistake with his money. Should Yashin give half of it back? If a player makes the league minimum and has a great year, he doesn't automatically get a raise from the owner if he still has time on his contract!

Because when one owner pays a player more than he should recieve (mainly done by the big market teams) other players in the league hold out for similar money. Most teams are unable to pay those salaries. Those teams lose money no matter what they do (se my responce above). I believe the owners are now saying "no, that's too much", but the only way to fix it is to make sure all teams play under the same rules. The only way to do that is to spell out how the rules are to be applied, thus the CBA and a possible hard cap. Otherwise you end up with charges of collusion, or the situation we see today.

Again, Darryl Sutter said the other day "our team operates with a cap". They have a limit from their owner on what they can spend to be financially feasible. Every team, theoretically, should have this. If all the teams are really losing so much money, the contract numbers would come down because owners wouldn't be able to pay it. I'm damn sure that if my team is losing money hand over fist I don't turn around and hand out fat contracts to further increase my losses.

Or, to wit, if the owners are as smart as they must be, how did they get themselves into this mess and why can't they get themselves out of it on their own?
The rules that got the owners into this mess were agreed upon by the players. Before that the rules favored the owners. How did the players fix that? By having a work stoppage. No side that has everything in their favor is going to willingly give it up. The only way the owners will get more favorable rules is by forcing the NHLPA to accept new rules, just as the players forced the owners to agree to more favorable rules. Neother side can do it with out the other side.

Edit: You mentioned somewhere that you just wanted for there to be hockey next season. That's great, I hope there is hockey next season. Unfortunately, I want my team to be here and palying (and playing competetively) 10 years from now. The way the economics of the game are going, My team will either: 1.) be moved 2.) be bankrupt, or 3.) only able to afford the cheapest available players and having little chance of winning the cup.


Last edited by djhn579: 05-28-2004 at 04:41 PM.
djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 04:45 PM
  #119
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Care to explain how to do that? The system *doesn't allow* you to offer a player less than he is currently making. If he's making less than the average salary, he gets a forced 10% raise. If he's making more, the lowest you can offer him is what he currently makes.

If you don't offer that, the player walks away as a complete unrestricted free agent, and you've flushed an asset down the drain. This is rarely a path worth pursuing, now you've got to pay or trade for a replacement.
you got that, its exactly how you do that. you walk away from them if the economics dont make sense. if enough GM's did this there would be plenty of options in the market to work for rates the teams wanted to pay.

make a decision and dont pay players their 10% if they arent worth it. there are plenty of players able to fill spots of mediocre talent. if the player is a prime player, there should be no question the player is worth the $ you are "forced" to offer.

its quite simple. if you dont QO Josh Green for 900k, then you can replace him with Clark Wilm for 475k, or Byron Ritchie at $500k or whoever else is out there. Why QO a guy at a 10% raise if he isnt worth the money, let him walk.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-28-2004, 04:56 PM
  #120
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
if enough GM's did this there would be plenty of options in the market to work for rates the teams wanted to pay.
Exactly. But how do you ensure all the GMs do it? As said so elequently above:
"the only way to fix it is to make sure all teams play under the same rules. The only way to do that is to spell out how the rules are to be applied".

If the GMs control themselves, its collusion. If they control the teams instead, its a cap. One's "illegal", one "wont be accepted by the players".

Cawz is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:19 PM
  #121
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Exactly. But how do you ensure all the GMs do it? As said so elequently above:
"the only way to fix it is to make sure all teams play under the same rules. The only way to do that is to spell out how the rules are to be applied".

If the GMs control themselves, its collusion. If they control the teams instead, its a cap. One's "illegal", one "wont be accepted by the players".
i dont understand .. why does it have to be legislated ? if you dont want to pay the player +10% dont, if you do, then do it. just stop complaining that you are paying too much. you either chose to pay it or you had an option not too.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:36 PM
  #122
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i dont understand .. why does it have to be legislated ? if you dont want to pay the player +10% dont, if you do, then do it. just stop complaining that you are paying too much. you either chose to pay it or you had an option not too.

dr
We've been over this too much already. All the owners have to be on the same page. A cap isnt needed if all the owners live within a reasonable budget. That wont happen unless it legislated. Cap or collusion. Read the last 5 or so posts.

Cawz is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 05:57 PM
  #123
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZodiac
Both
Owners = Stupid ( ie: paying Holik $9 million/yr!!!! WTF!!! )

NHLPA = Greedy union leader (No matter what money was offered to players, he would advise to hold out for more, Goodenow was furious when Brodeaur signed for about 6 Million/year with NJ when he could have got 9 Million/yr, fortunatley Brodeaur told him to shove it.
The problem is that it's NOT stupid for the rich teams to throw around big contracts. That way, they use their higher revenues in their advantage since other teams won't be able to compete to acquire the players they want. At the same time, when salaries are like they are actually, they can actually put their hands on RFAs that want just a bit more than their qualifying offer. Quite intelligent way to be able to get the best players.

The Rangers were stupid to throw $9 million/yr to Holik, but only because their management plan was non-existent (or terrible) and their model was assembling the highest number of star players (creating an all-star team) instead of having a good team. On the other hand, if they had the revenues to pay Holik $9 million and if he had been the missing part of the puzzle for continuous playoff success, it would have been an excellent investment for the Rangers. Now, such contracts are terrible for the rest of the league, but not for the Rangers. So it's an intelligent move for the Rangers if well-planned because it creates hardships in the competition while helping their team.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 06:15 PM
  #124
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
The problem is that it's NOT stupid for the rich teams to throw around big contracts. That way, they use their higher revenues in their advantage since other teams won't be able to compete to acquire the players they want. At the same time, when salaries are like they are actually, they can actually put their hands on RFAs that want just a bit more than their qualifying offer. Quite intelligent way to be able to get the best players.

The Rangers were stupid to throw $9 million/yr to Holik, but only because their management plan was non-existent (or terrible) and their model was assembling the highest number of star players (creating an all-star team) instead of having a good team. On the other hand, if they had the revenues to pay Holik $9 million and if he had been the missing part of the puzzle for continuous playoff success, it would have been an excellent investment for the Rangers. Now, such contracts are terrible for the rest of the league, but not for the Rangers. So it's an intelligent move for the Rangers if well-planned because it creates hardships in the competition while helping their team.
If the NHL was a true free market, it would be smart. In the closed market that the NHL is, it's not so smart. If it hurts the other teams in the league, it's a problem, and it has been pointed out by many here what those problems are. The league has to work for all the teams, not just some privileged few.

You think that letting the teams that can't keep up with the player costs leave will help? It may, but you also lose fans in those markets, that means less in merchandise sales. It also means less time on TV since fewer markets would have any interest in hockey. It also means less publicity since it will be in fewer news papers and sports shows. Whatever way you go, there will be problems as long as a majority of the owners are not making money.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-28-2004, 06:42 PM
  #125
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
you got that, its exactly how you do that. you walk away from them if the economics dont make sense. if enough GM's did this there would be plenty of options in the market to work for rates the teams wanted to pay.

make a decision and dont pay players their 10% if they arent worth it. there are plenty of players able to fill spots of mediocre talent. if the player is a prime player, there should be no question the player is worth the $ you are "forced" to offer.
Wow, that's so simple. Just let all your good players walk away for nothing, give players and draft picks away to trade for new guys, or sign mediocre "replacements" with a fraction of the skill and talent, and watch your team sink to the worst in the league. And watch your ass get fired soon after.

Hmm, let me think, why aren't GM's taking this route?

PecaFan 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 05:29 AM.

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

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