A request for the pro-NHLPA

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by degroat*, Nov 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. degroat*

    degroat* Guest

    I once asked on this board for pro-NHLPA people to tell me why having a cap would be bad for the NHL. You failed. So, now I have another request...

    Convince me that the current system is GOOD for the NHL. Tell us all why the NHL should continue using the system.
     
  2. quat

    quat winsome, loathsome

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    13,018
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    artist
    Location:
    Victoria BC
    Home Page:
    Cuz Linden is a GOD adn Edmonton Sucks!!!

    Tooth decay is good

    People don't deserve doctors if they choose to live, like morons, away from bigger cities.

    Big, hairy Poodles might go hungry.

    What was the question?
     
  3. Onion Boy

    Onion Boy Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Unemployed
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Nobody believes the current system is good, even the NHLPA itself. However, just because the current system is bad doesn't mean a hard cap is good. In fact, IMO a hard cap is just as bad, if not worse.

    Here's a question. Why don't the pro-owner people tell me why a hard cap is better than a soft cap?
     
  4. degroat*

    degroat* Guest

    I beg to differ. Go back and read the threads where TB and DR attempt to convince others that a cap is bad for the league. Nearly everything they say would also apply to a soft cap and a luxury tax. Additionally, nearly everything that they say is in support of the current system.

    Funny... as I already stated in this thread I previously asked in a thread why a hard cap was bad for the NHL. Not a single person was able to give a reasonable answer. Feel free to pull that thread up if you feel you

    Here's an idea. Make your own thread if you want that question answered. If you were to make that thread you would find out that I never once said I was against a soft cap (that is not a luxury tax). I'd guess you'd get similar responses from most people that are pro-Owner.
     
  5. Onion Boy

    Onion Boy Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Unemployed
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    I may go ahead and make my own thread. Before I do though, explain to me how pro-owner people can support a soft cap over a hard cap when the owners themselves refuse to negotiate anything other than a hard cap. I guess there ought to be a distinction between "pro-owner" and "anti-player".
     
  6. struckmatch

    struckmatch Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    When has PA management acknowledged that this league is in trouble, and that this system doesn't work? In fact, aren't they doing the opposite of recognizing this league's problems? Aren't they wanting a free market system, just like the previous CBA?

    Explain how a system that would involve cost-certainty is worse than a system that caused this league to lose over 200 million dollars.

    I don't think pro-owner people are necessarily supporting a hard cap, I think we're supporting the owners because they are advocating a system which would insure the financial betterment, and stability of this league, and our sport. I don't think a hard cap would be any better than a stiff luxury tax, and I'm not particularly an owner supporter, rather I'm just disgusted in the PA's unwillingness to be realistic and contribute to fixing the league's problems.

    I don't think a hard cap would be better than a luxury tax with substantial penalties for exceeding the soft cap. Opposed to what the NHLPA proposed, which was a ridiculous proposal which was an insult to the league, and the future of the game, it was a very soft cap which was about 40 - 50 million, with about 50 cents per every dollar as a penalty. Tell me if that is a significant concession?
     
  7. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,078
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    Which soft cap system?

    $10m + 500% luxury tax would be a soft cap
    $50m + 10% luxury tax would be a soft cap.

    You will need to define the parameters of the soft cap for a sensible reply.
     
  8. Onion Boy

    Onion Boy Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Unemployed
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Considering that people claim the NHLPA wishes to maintain the status quo I would say yes it is a significant concession. I think the finalized CBA should have a lower threshold and a higher tax, but that is the product of negotiations. I would be pro-owner if after that proposal the owners countered with, say, a 35mil soft cap, dollar on dollar tax, and the NHLPA refused to compromise.

    But they didn't.
     
  9. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    Duh... aight lets go through this slowly

    1. A cap is bad for the nHL because it imposes mediocrity on the league. This is a bad thing, for many obvious reasons. Good teams with good management should be rewarded by having the best chance to win. Teams that have incompetent management should lose. There is nothign wrong with that . In fact, it is entirely natural.

    2. A cap would mean lower UFA ages, this means players that are drafted and developped by teams either chose to bolt when they become UFA or the team doesnt have the cap room to keep them anyway. Now, with the players UFA's at 31, they are not in their prime years, and thus losing them rarely makes a difference. Only goalies could you argue that they are still peaking at 31...

    3. Increased roster turnover and decreased player identification on teams. The great thing about the NHL is that the players stay with teams for 8 or 9 years at a time, well at least the elite level ones. This is great for fans. I have been a Sens fan hardcore since the 1996-97 season and have enjoyed the growing up of the Sens. Given our repeated playoff chokes often put a damper on the Sens fan spirit but its been a very interesting ride none theless. I would take the Sens ride of thel ast 8 years over any capped system.

    4. A cap sells false hope by pretending to fans that each team has an equal chance. All this leads to is fans paying more (or increased attendance) in falsely believing their team can win. I guess in a sense this isnt a bad thing, but all it does is make the owners more profitable at the expense of the quality of the game.

    5. Its been proven time and time again that you wn then you get expensive. If you win and cant afford to get expensive then your team is not in an NHL market. I believe all 30 markets, big and small can compete in this league and thats what the whole point of a league is , right? Well managed teams with good organizations win, Pooly managed teams with bad drafting and orgainziational goals or plans lose. Its ok and natural. Money cant buy you anything to start off with in the NHL. You have to earn it the hardway. Every market from Tampa to Ottawa to Detroit has to build up the same way. Market size does not dictate success since hockey is a niche sport and is regionalized. The main source of income for teams is their rinks. Thats a great things for fans since the Rangers despite being 15 times the market size of Ottawa cannot generate 15 times the revenues. In fact, Ottawa made more money than the Rangers for the last several years.

    The NHL has th best CBA in the big 4 for competitive balance. Thats why the CBA is good.
     
  10. shveik

    shveik Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Inspired dilettante
    Home Page:
    Having a hard cap would be bad for the NHL? :amazed:

    If that was the case, the NHL would not be pushing for it. It is good for the owners (they will make great money, at least in the beginning), but it is bad for the players. So it is clear why the owners are for it, and why the players are against it.

    I do not think it is my responsibility to convince you of anything. I am on the NHLPA side mostly because I am annoyed by the lack of coherent argument from the pro-NHL side. Usually it doens't go beyond: "we need cost certainty", "the players are making too much", "it is common sense".

    Ultimately, I am on neither side. I do not care whether the NHL "wins", or the NHLPA. It is a business between the two, and I am sure however they settle it, none of them is going to suffer anything close to what 99.99999% of the world population goes through.
     
  11. degroat*

    degroat* Guest

    Explain to me how pro-players peopel can support a soft cap over a luxury tax when the players themselves refuse to negotiate anything other than a luxury tax.

    See what I'm getting at?
     
  12. degroat*

    degroat* Guest

    Your argument holds no water at all. Good teams will good management will be rewarded MORE under a capped system.


    A cap MAY mean lower UFA ages because the owners might have to make that concession, but the two issues are completely unrelated.

    There is no evidence that an increased turnover in the NFL or NBA due to the cap has been bad for the league.

    You're right, it's not a bad thing. That hope sells tickets.

    A poorly managed team with bad drafting such as the St Louis Blues, while they haven't won a Cup, have been quite successful over the last 5 years. With the decisions the Blues have made, they should have been one of the worst teams in the league. But, they weren't because they had an owner willing to give his GM a $60M payroll. Under a capped system this would not be possible.

    If you want to argue that there's not a competitive balance problem in the NHL, that's fine. But there is absolutely NO question that the NFL is the best for competitive balance.
     
  13. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    What kind of moron thinks that forced mediocrity means high quality competitive balance?

    IF there is a cap, players get increased freedom.


    The Blues were far better when they won the Presidents Trophy in 2000 with a 35 million dollar payroll than they are now with a 60 million dollar one.

    Fans who want caps to "punish" the talent-rich teams are exhibiting petty jealousy. Its unfortunate, really.

    How does a cap NOT punish a well managed team? A team like Ottawa with several assembled stars and a reasonable budget would be dismantled under a capped system. Ottawa is one of the top 5 managed teams in the league from the AHL up to the top. Them, along with teams such as Tampa, Vancouver, Boston etc will be hurt.
     
  14. FlyersFan10*

    FlyersFan10* Guest

    Anyways, with regards to the owners proposal, the problem with it is as follows:

    1) It allows for crappy teams to remain crappy teams. They're going to use the excuse about being close to the cap as a reason to not improve their team. It allows for continued mediocrity while hiding behind the stance of fiscal sensibility.

    2) The rich teams are still going to be rich. What does a salary cap do for teams that make money anyways? It's going to allow them to make even more money. Say what you want about revenue sharing, but you can bet that owners are going to pillage away more money for their own coffers.

    3) Next bargaining agreement. You can almost guarantee that when it comes time for the next agreement, owners will look towards a lower salary cap, claiming that the current cap is too rich for them. The books are always going to be doctored in favour of the owners and until a TRUE independent third party looks at the books they'll continue to be doctored. Hey, Arthur Levitt may be respected in terms of Finances and he might be a Chief Economist, but he had a guideline going into the audit. That was already admitted. Once again, no free reign, but he was given the "Under the following guidelines of revenue...." speech that we've had to listen to.

    4) Why should owners who mismanage their franchises be rewarded for their own stupidity? C'mon. These teams get shots at the top draft picks available and that is even more than enough of a reward. But to then be rewarded with a profit and then tell the fans that they are doing this for the future is farce and a slap in the face. Being someone who owns season's tickets, I can tell you that if the salary cap comes into place, there is no way that the price of tickets will do. They will still remain high and the product will still remain the same.

    5) We've heard what the players have offered, but the only thing we've heard from the owners is about 6 different types of proposals that tie salaries to revenue. I don't have an issue with that, but what else were the owners offering. To me, if that doesn't speak in volumes that there was never anything other than a salary cap on the owner's minds, then shame on you for believing the OWNER'S propoganda machine.

    6) Hey, if there is a true revenue sharing plan in place, it will work. Do you honestly think that Ed Snider wants to have a 60 million payroll and then pay an additional 20 to 30 million in luxury tax? Do you think the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan (who OWNS the Toronto Maple Leafs) would want the same? C'mon, these people/organizations didn't get the way they are by being stupid. To suggest that these teams would continue to pay an exoborant amount of money on payroll and then pay a tax on top of that and lose out on revenue is assinine to say the least. They are smart business people who want to make money. So the notion that these teams would continue to lose money to keep a high payroll is completely ludicrous and can be thrown out the window.

    7) The fact that Gary Bettman has banned ANY owner from speaking shows that there is something to hide. Do you not find it suspicious that Bobby Clarke or Glen Sather or Kevin Lowe or Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux haven't said anything? These guys know hockey and they know how the league operates. Fear of being fined a million bucks while Gary plays a game of chicken just shows how out of touch Bettman is. Bettman isn't well liked and there have been incidents in the past where guys like Lou Lamorello and Harry Sinden have questioned Gary's hockey sense. When you have Lou, who is probably the best GM in the game, questioning the comissioner's hockey knowledge and sense, you know that your league is in trouble.
     
    Last edited by moderator Gee Wally: Nov 10, 2004
  15. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    That's funny, the only person slinging mud in here is you.
     
  16. Johnnybegood13

    Johnnybegood13 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    157
    The point should be that the league is in real trouble because of a few nitwit owners driving up salaries. Facts are, the league can't survive losing even close to the kind of money as reported.

    Four things need to happen the way i see it.

    1) Players need to rollback around 10% of their salaries

    2) Soft-cap with luxury tax

    3) Arbritation needs to change

    4) High end hard cap (i would hate to see a NYY type team in the NHL)
     
  17. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    So are you trying to tell me that under the current sytem Ottawa would be able to hold on to all their stars until they are 31? If nothing changes Ottawa will be dismantled in the next few years, they can`t afford much more payroll than they have right now. It blows me away that you think a cap will hurt Ottawa.
     
  18. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Actually, Melnyk MAY be willing to sustain losses to keep the team together, but I wouldn't count on it.

    All a capped system needs to address some of the major concerns about player movement is a clause that allows teams to spend more on the players they develop than anyone else can.

    To pretend there is only one type of cost certainty and that we can predict exactly how each would play out is foolish. The terms of the deal, and how teams, agents and NHLPA manipulate them, will be very important factors. In all likelyhood, the real effects of the next CBA won't be know until well after it has been signed and trends have been established.
     
  19. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    So why exactly do the owners own NHL franchises? Most of the owners in the NHL are competitive people who enjoy the game. To say they are going to sit back and rake in the dough if a cap is implemented is a load of crap. With a cap they will have a set amount of money to spend, and the its up to the hockey side of the management to ice the best team as possible.

    What is wrong with the rich owners making money? The NHL is unique because not only does it have small markets, but it NEEDS those small markets. The NHL needs to have markets in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa. So if some of the rich owners make money, so what as long as the small markets, specifically canadian small markets are stable, then so be it.

    I would love to see some precedent for this statement. I haven`t seen the NFL or NBA demand that the cap be lowered in any of the subsequent CBA negotiations. If I`m not mistaken I think their caps have become more player friendly as the years have gone by.

    Why is it that people think the owners are being rewarded? They have lost MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars over the last 10 years. A cap isn`t going to suddenly put that money back in their pockets. Also, where did the statement come from that teams that mismanaged their franchises get shots at the top picks? When is the last time NYR had a top 5 pick, or St. Louis had #1 overall. More often than not it is the small markets struggling to keep up that are getting the high picks.

    Exactly, we have heard what the players have offered, and that is one of the reasons I don`t support them. BRUTAL OFFER. next!

    Where in the NHLPA`s proposal would the owners be forced to pay "20 to 30 million in luxury tax" on a 60 million dollar payroll. The two sides would be talking right now if that were in the proposal, hell I would probably be watching highlights from last nights games.

    Its all about PR. In negotiations it is better to have one voice speaking on behalf of everyone instead of having all members running around saying what is on their mind for one fleeting moment, just ask the NHLPA. For the record I have heard Wayne Gretzky say on numerous occasions that the Coyotes are losing alot of money and the system needs to change.

    Who pi$$ed in your corn flakes this morning?
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2004
  20. I doubt it as Bettman said Aug. 4, 2004 he had absolutely no interest in a luxury tax, as it would not guarantee 'cost certainty'. So even if it did include those amounts, he's only interested in a hard salary cap. The league's unwillingness to discuss anything but a cap is a major reason why the 2 sides aren't talking. And remember that Bettman was the one that helped engineer the soft cap that the NBA uses today...and the NBA's CBA is expiring soon and there have been rumblings that the players will go on strike regarding their cap. I just don't have enough faith in Bettman that he can get a cap to work at all...let alone in the NHL.

    If the owners were willing back in '94 to have a system that included luxury tax, revenue sharing and salary rollback, why aren't they willing now (though they wanted the luxury tax to be tied to the revenues so as to get an amount of cost certainty out of it)?? With some changes to the proposal by the players, the league can return to a profitable one and allow the players to feel like they won.
     
    Last edited by moderator : Nov 8, 2004
  21. Lexicon Devil

    Lexicon Devil Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2002
    Messages:
    8,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's quite funny. Perhaps if Ottawa chokes in the first round for the next two years, then there might be some dismantling. But there would be no problem holding onto the core if they succeed - and that's the way it should be.
     
  22. Olorin

    Olorin Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    :handclap:

    About time...
     
  23. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    So it is your belief that Ottawa can hold on to Chara, Redden, Volchenkov, Hossa, Havlat, Alfredsson and Spezza under the current CBA? I don`t care if they win the cup for the next 4 years, in their market they cannot, I repeat cannot hold onto those key players for very much longer under the current system. Winning the cup might actually make it harder, since those players would be asking for even more with playoff success.
     
  24. degroat*

    degroat* Guest

    LOL. Do you not understand how ridiculous what you are saying is? You're saying that a cap caues mediocrity... meaning that every team is mediocre... meaning that more teams are equal to each other... meaning that there's more of a competitive balance. :help:

    That doesn't change the fact that they were able to stay near the top of the league with poor management because of a high payroll.


    I'm a fan of a team with an owner that is willing to give fans a $60M payroll and is managed poorly. How again is it 'etty jealousy' for me to want a cap?

    I really don't know how to respond to something so absurd.

    Under a capped system, the teams with the best management are going to be the best teams.

    Under a non-capped system, the teams with the best management are going to be the best teams, except that in a non-capped system, teams with poor management and a higher payroll can be equally as successful.

    In other words... teams with good management will be BETTER off under a cap.
     
  25. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    The owners have not moved from their hard cap stance because they players have done nothing to force them to. If the owners stay on their current position, (hypothetically) an impasse is declared and a hard cap is implemented. I honestly believe that the owners and players want a season, everyone involved in the situation is losing money and deep down everyone wants to have a season. If the players would make a proposal with a stiff luxury tax you can bet that the owners would listen, however the union has publicly stated that they will never accept any type of luxury tax that acts as an artificial barrier on salaries. That is the problem. Until the players show a willingness to negotiate a hard tax there is no point for the owners to come off their hard cap stance.

    Alot of people, including myself, think that a stiff luxury tax is the middle ground in this situation, and where a deal will eventually get done. The pro-player people, however, seem to think that the players have already made an offer in this middle ground, but this is simply not the case. The players are refusing to accept any luxury tax that places a significant drag on salaries. IMO that is just as bad as the owners refusing to budge from their hard cap stance.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"