A question for the NHLPA supporters

[degroat*]

Perpetual parity
Excessive player movement

First of all, both are debateable.

Secondly, let's assume that both are side effects of a cap.

Why is either bad for the NHL?

Is the league going to lose fans because more teams have a chance to win the cup? Probably not.

Is the league going to lsoe fans because dynasties might not be possible? Considering that dynasties are only good for one city, probably not.

Is player movement going to cause the league to lose fans? I've never once heard a NFL fan say that they're going to stop watching the sport because some player left his team. However, I have heard of NHL fans of small market teams giving up on the sport because they can't keep their players.

 

[GKJ]

Why would a hard cap would be bad for the NHL?

I don't think most people who "support" the union believes this 100%. The NHLPA "supporters" beleive that the players shouldn't have to bail the owners out of bad business practices and decisions.



A cap will work if it is structured properly, which I don't think is really that much possible. A luxury tax would be suited best because taxes can be distributed through revenue sharing (because people will go over the tax) depending on how it is set up.

 

[degroat*]

So the cries of poverty are just a negotiating ploy...

Have you ever heard of this thing called expenses? Sometimes it's referred to as costs. If not, you probably should avoid this forum.

 

[degroat*]

I don't think most people who "support" the union believes this 100%. The NHLPA "supporters" beleive that the players shouldn't have to bail the owners out of bad business practices and decisions.

A cap will work if it is structured properly, which I don't think is really that much possible. A luxury tax would be suited best because taxes can be distributed through revenue sharing (because people will go over the tax) depending on how it is set up.

In other words a cap is not bad for the league. Thank you for your answer.

 

[Cawz]

Wouldn't the league be stronger without these financial bottom feeders? Explain why not.

The league would be stronger if they kept the bottom feeders and got rid of the teams that spent more than they made. You seem to keep forgetting how much the league lost. Usually the bottom feeders are the teams being fiscally respinsible.

So why not get rid of them and just keep the big teams with 80 million dollar payrolls? Because when that team misses the playoffs, they will only get 12000 fans and become one of the bottom feeders.

 

[habitual_hab]

Have you ever heard of this thing called expenses? Sometimes it's referred to as costs. If not, you probably should avoid this forum.

Excuse my obtuse opinions, omnipotent one. Those things you call "expense" are, I assume, what the NHL refers to as the 75% player cost ratio. It is understood by this simpleton that the NHL's 75% includes all player costs, not just salaries. Insurance, per diem expenses, social security, NHL trophy and playoff awards, worker's compensation, pension plan -- routine benefits, not salaries, none negotiated between player agents and GMs. The most egregious inclusion here is per diem -- this is a form of expense reimbursal for players and should be counted as an operational cost, not a player cost.

 

[habitual_hab]

First of all, both are debateable.

Secondly, let's assume that both are side effects of a cap.

Why is either bad for the NHL?

Is the league going to lose fans because more teams have a chance to win the cup? Probably not.

Is the league going to lsoe fans because dynasties might not be possible? Considering that dynasties are only good for one city, probably not.

Is player movement going to cause the league to lose fans? I've never once heard a NFL fan say that they're going to stop watching the sport because some player left his team. However, I have heard of NHL fans of small market teams giving up on the sport because they can't keep their players.

It all depends on what product you want to see on the ice. If it's a product where every team hovers around the .500 mark and no fan has the ability to identify with "franchise" players because players change teams too often, then it's for you. I, for one, prefer the "status quo".

 

[Cawz]

First of all, both are debateable.

Secondly, let's assume that both are side effects of a cap.

Why is either bad for the NHL?

Is the league going to lose fans because more teams have a chance to win the cup? Probably not.

Is the league going to lsoe fans because dynasties might not be possible? Considering that dynasties are only good for one city, probably not.

Is player movement going to cause the league to lose fans? I've never once heard a NFL fan say that they're going to stop watching the sport because some player left his team. However, I have heard of NHL fans of small market teams giving up on the sport because they can't keep their players.

Thats just it man. People keep talking about how a cap would ruin the game. What are they basing this on? Is it going to cause the players to be angry so they are going to clutch and grab more?

Wasnt the league stronger when the NYR traded off all their superstars? According to some people here, that dispursion of talent is the worst possible thing that could happen to the league.

 

[Cawz]

If Calgary and Tampa Bay had no options in the market to use to their advantage to build a great team, you might have a case for unfairness.

But if Ottawa and Toronto can both compete using 2 different strategies, neither guaranteed to win you a Cup faster, then the problem is solved.

Dont prevent the spending, prevent its effectiveness in giving an unfair advantage.

But the problem is that now Calgary has to break the bank to sign their captain because their goalie got a huge raise based on the other teams, whose spendthift ways caused the league to lose 200 million.

If the league was making money, this wouldnt be an issue and too freaken bad for Calgary. But if you have to go over budget because of the idiot in the next office who maxed out his credit cards, then theres a problem.

And no, I dont think a hard cap is the answer. But the answer is a lot closer to what the owners are proposing than what the PA is proposing.

 

[thinkwild]

I don't think most people who "support" the union believes this 100%. The NHLPA "supporters" beleive that the players shouldn't have to bail the owners out of bad business practices and decisions.



A cap will work if it is structured properly, which I don't think is really that much possible. A luxury tax would be suited best because taxes can be distributed through revenue sharing (because people will go over the tax) depending on how it is set up.

Well i cant speak for anyone else but i dont agree that a uniform team payroll cap is a good idea, or that the market distortions it creates would be pleasant.

A tax used to gnerate revenue for sharing is one thing, but a punitive tax acting as a cap is quite another.

Lets assume the players agreed to the owners demands for cost certainty. They held back a percentage of their income and if they went over the negotiated total payroll amount, they give the money back.

I still dont think its a good idea to implement this solution through the use of a uniform team payroll cap. Im not sure if the players care, but I think we should as fans.

 

[thinkwild]

But the problem is that now Calgary has to break the bank to sign their captain because their goalie got a huge raise based on the other teams, whose spendthift ways caused the league to lose 200 million.

Break the bank? SJ lost Nolan because they couldnt afford to break the bank. Ottawa got of rid of Yashin because they couldnt afford to break the bank. NJ got rid of holik because they couldnt afford to break the bank. Detroit got rid of Federov because they couldnt afford to break the bank. Colorado got rid of Klemm, Podein because they couldnt afford to break the bank.

Why would Calgary break the bank. Successful teams in NHL markets similar to Calgary have afforded it. Calgary has choices. The best choices are to develop their own replacements. But I think Calgary will find Iginla is worth the money and they can find a way to afford it and improve as a team.

 

[Cawz]

Break the bank? SJ lost Nolan because they couldnt afford to break the bank. Ottawa got of rid of Yashin because they couldnt afford to break the bank. NJ got rid of holik because they couldnt afford to break the bank. Detroit got rid of Federov because they couldnt afford to break the bank. Colorado got rid of Klemm, Podein because they couldnt afford to break the bank.

Why would Calgary break the bank. Successful teams in NHL markets similar to Calgary have afforded it. Calgary has choices. The best choices are to develop their own replacements. But I think Calgary will find Iginla is worth the money and they can find a way to afford it and improve as a team.

Podein and Klemm?

I meant more that people keep saying that its the owners signing the cheques, but its the players that put them in between the rock and the hard place. I'm sure Calgary had a budget so they could keep both Kipper and Iggy, but because of teams that spent more than they brought in, Kippers salary was set.

Once again, I stress, if the league did not lose hundreds of millions, then too bad Calgary. But becasue the free market is set by overspending, theres a problem.

 

[djhn579]

Then you are asking the wrong questions.


If Calgary and Tampa Bay had no options in the market to use to their advantage to build a great team, you might have a case for unfairness.

But if Ottawa and Toronto can both compete using 2 different strategies, neither guaranteed to win you a Cup faster, then the problem is solved.

Dont prevent the spending, prevent its effectiveness in giving an unfair advantage.

Ottawa lost $6M to $7M this past season. They would have some difficult decisions in the next year or two without some form of salary restraint.

 

[thinkwild]

Kippers salary was set.

Set at a value less than his market value. Calgary cant afford to remain in the league with a team full of players getting less than their market value either? I dont believe it.

How much a percentage less of their market value would be give Calgary enough options to build a team to make it to the finals.

Once again, I stress, if the league did not lose hundreds of millions, then too bad Calgary. But becasue the free market is set by overspending, theres a problem.

If losses are from foolish overspending, it is hardly a systemic problem to be solved on the backs of the players. Make different choices.

I am unconvinced all the losses are CBA related.

NYR losses are CBA related?

St Louis losses are CBA related?

Washington losses are CBA related?

NJ, Pit, NYI problems are CBA related?

I think they are management related. For Bettman to stand there and say: We had no option - man John Turner or what.

 

[thinkwild]

Ottawa lost $6M to $7M this past season. They would have some difficult decisions in the next year or two without some form of salary restraint.

Or maybe less Eagles concerts

Perhaps if they counted ALL the rink advertising and suite revenue, the number would be different. Menyk paid $130mil or something for the team and arena. If that 130mil investment is providing a reasonable rate of return, but within that, the team loses money and the arena makes money, why is that a problem to be solved on the backs of the players rights to negotiate their values in a market place, cashing in on the free agency the courts have awarded them?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Let's assume for a second that anything that Bettman has ever done has been bad for the NHL... do you realize how ridiculous your logic is?

If we assume that everything Bettman has done has been bad, then it is logical his proposal now is also bad. Are you a big Gary Bettman fan or something? You think he has done good things?

1. National TV deal increased from $17M per year to the $60M per year the league would have gotten this upcoming season.

A little over $1 million per team to $2 million per team in ten years. Wow.

2. Average attendance increased from around 14,000 per game to 16,500 per game despite the fact that many of the teams that have been added since then are below average.

Yes, Bettman has added many teams that has dragged down average attendance. You must be getting desperate if you are claiming this is good. Average attendance is up because the fans paid for new rinks. Is it up as a percentage of capacity?

3. Total revenue the league generates has increased from $500M to $2 Billion and even more if you trust the players, as you clearly do.

Which owner was the latest to be charged with fraud? Islanders, wasn't it? That one folowed hot on the heels of the Qwest fine. Add a lockout and we'll call it a trifecta week for the NHL. You trust the owners?

I will concede that Bettman has done an excellent job encouraging teams to charge higher prices and plaster more commercials in rinks and on TV. Prices for merchandising is way up too. The little guy has been priced out of the rink. I had to spend about $200 to watch my team on TV last year! Thanks, Gary!

These are the good things Bettman has done. And coming next? He's going to turn a great league into a version of the National Football Lottery. And you think it would be great! You and Bettman!

There is absolutely no denying that under Bettman the sport has grown considerably in terms of revenue production.

Hurrah! We're paying way more to watch a less entertaining game! On the one hand, Bettman has done a great job skinning the fan, and on the other, the game is doomed without a salary cap.

If everything Bettman had done for the NHL had been bad, the owners would have fired him a long time ago. There's a reason why he not only still has a job but has the backing of the owners during these labor negotations... because he has performed his job very well.

The owners? Like they make decisions that are good for hockey. Want to try to defend your buddy William Wirtz next? They can do no wrong I guess, boy scouts, every one of them. What do any of them know about hockey?

I think you forgot to explain why fans in the good markets should pay the freight for fans in the poor ones.

Tom

 

[Cawz]

Set at a value less than his market value. Calgary cant afford to remain in the league with a team full of players getting less than their market value either? I dont believe it.

How much a percentage less of their market value would be give Calgary enough options to build a team to make it to the finals.

Again, the market value is based on a lose-money system right now. The market value is set by 8 million dollar stars playing in front of 12000 people. This is the reality of the NHL. They are being paid as if people are actually coming out in droves with cash in hand to watch teams.

If losses are from foolish overspending, it is hardly a systemic problem to be solved on the backs of the players. Make different choices.

I am unconvinced all the losses are CBA related.

NYR losses are CBA related?

St Louis losses are CBA related?

Washington losses are CBA related?

NJ, Pit, NYI problems are CBA related?

I think they are management related. For Bettman to stand there and say: We had no option - man John Turner or what.

On the backs of the players? Come on. Its a problem that needs to be fixed that both sides caused.

Its a CBA problem if it allows it to happen. With a 2.1 billion dollar industry, everyone should be making money. Then the "Business of Hockey" threads would stop and we'd be actually talkign hockey. Money shouldnt be an issue.

If the owners sign a bad CBA, they stand to lose money. If the players sign a bad CBA, no matter what, they will never lose money. They will always make millions for their special talents.

 

[thinkwild]

Money will always be an issue. Moreso under a cap, when the GM needs to hire capologists.

How can a system that allows only a small portion of the players, the ones that survive to free agency, have the right to get their market value be unfair. How can any responsible businessman or smart hockey mind stand up and say, because he cant buy free agents like the other teams, he is unfairly disadvantaged in finding a proper way to build a champ.

How can a cap be better than restricting free agency until 31?

What if you capped the values of RFAs. Once they hit 2mil, they are on performance bonus until they hit free agency?

RFAs are a different set of salaries with different rules than the UFAs. UFAs must have the right to be UFAs. Tinker with the RFA system if you want to lower the speed at which the young players needed to win you a cup approach their free market value.

 

[YellHockey*]

weren't Tampa and Ottawa both modest payroll teams last year? they would have both been under any sort of reasonable cap figure

Well, the assumption is that the owners will significantly lower the age of unrestricted free agency as a concession to a salary cap. Based on this assumption a whole lot of players on these teams suddenly got a lot more expensive. Redden, Chara, St Louis, Boyle, Modin, Phillips, Kubina get a lot more which makes it hard to keep everyone under the cap.

 

[YellHockey*]

Ottawa lost $6M to $7M this past season. They would have some difficult decisions in the next year or two without some form of salary restraint.

No. The Senators are claiming that they lost that amount of money this year. But who knows what the entire organization lost.

After all, Bryden was able to get the Corel Centre to make millions more each year then the team would lose. And that's with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that needed to be repaid.

Melnyk came in, wiped out the debt, forced better deals with some of the Senators former partners, watched revenues increase and only raised the payroll by about $10M. Those claimed losses don't add up.

 

[me2]

I explained exactly why I hate caps. The intent is to eliminate great teams. It creates tons of player movement. It punishes the fans in places where there money is being invested wisely.
Tom

What? A cap is brutal on money wasters. Teams that run smartly and "invest wisely" will get much, much more out of the cap space than squanderers and teams that cave to player salary demands.

Its still possible to build great teams under a cap and have long playoff runs. The key is the draft, draft well and keep the team cheap and effective. Remove the draft and you encourage parity.

 

[habitual_hab]

Which owner was the latest to be charged with fraud? Islanders, wasn't it? That one followed hot on the heels of the Qwest fine. Add a lockout and we'll call it a trifecta week for the NHL. You trust the owners? The owners? Like they make decisions that are good for hockey. Want to try to defend your buddy William Wirtz next? They can do no wrong I guess, boy scouts, every one of them.

like the Wirtz family, who paid off Illinois lawmakers to pass legislation that gave them liquor distribution monopolies, laws that were struck down as unconstitutional; Bruce McNall, a Kings' owner who went to jail for fraud, and Philip Anschutz, another Kings' owner who has so far escaped the criminal charges that four of his executives have been unable to avoid for the well-publicized accounting fraud at his company Qwest, but has not been able to escape civil charges; the Rigas family, who will go to jail for fraud when all is said and done, Harold Ballard, who among many notorious attributes that included racism and sexism, went to jail on 48 counts of fraud, one of them misappropriating funds from his Toronto franchise to renovate his home, and John Spano, who went to jail for defrauding the NHL itself; Alan Cohen, who made his fortune infringing patents but survived patent infringement suits brought upon him by rival drug companies like Eugene Melnyk's Biovail, which itself has survived patent infringement suits and is currently being sued for accounting irregularities...

Yes, we should all put our collective faith in the owners because, as their record above shows, they are beyond reproach. And, we should also trust what they put in the books they give Mr. Levitt. Jesus wept.

 

[Cawz]

I think you forgot to explain why fans in the good markets should pay the freight for fans in the poor ones.

I agree. Why should the responsible teams have to bail out the teams that spend like they are making NBA or NFL revenues. Why should the teams that make money have to bail out the teams who only get fans out for weekend games because they are in a fringe market.

Because fans of hockey are everywhere, and all the teams can survive if every thing is run properly. There are too many threads about which teams should be contracted. Thats such a simple minded solution. Kill the runts of the litter so the rest of the herd can live.

It sounds like the league is saying, "theres more than enough food to go around, as long as the everyone eats responibly. And since history has taught us that this wont happen, we need some sort of rules to ensure this. Then we can all be fed."

It sounds like the PA is saying, "we want them to decide what they eat, since they are buying the food from us. Their hunger will dictate how much they eat."

 

[me2]

If we assume that everything Bettman has done has been bad, then it is logical his proposal now is also bad. Are you a big Gary Bettman fan or something? You think he has done good things?



A little over $1 million per team to $2 million per team in ten years. Wow.

Tom

US inflation from 94 to 03 was 22%. Thats a 100% increase. Can't be that bad.

 

[me2]

I think you forgot to explain why fans in the good markets should pay the freight for fans in the poor ones.

Tom

Exactly. And for the same reasons why should successful teams sufffer with worse draft picks? There should be no draft at all, let every team bid for any player/prospect they want. Dynasties are good, let the richest teams build never ending dynasties.