A request for the pro-NHLPA

Status
Not open for further replies.

degroat*

Guest
vanlady said:
OK very slowly. In Vancouver we have known who is buying our team for over a year, but the expression of interest in the team only became formal at the end of August. How does this relate, anyone who was a hockey fan in 92 forward knew that both the Nordique and Jets were leaving. When the Jets left in 93, everyone knew the Nordique were going to Colorado. Simple bargaining gentleman, before a formal proposal can be submitted there is a very lenghthy discovery process that must be followed, including the formal audit by the purchaser, this is done BEFORE the expression of interest not after. Vancouver has been in these discussions for over a year.

Regardless of how many times you twist and turn it, you are wrong.

Contrary to what you claimed, the Avalanche were not talked about as going bankrupt during the 1994 lockout.

Contrary to what you claimed, the Avalanche were not sold before the lockout ended.

Face it, you were wrong and/or completely lied and I called you out on it just like I have on every other thing you have said in this thread.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
vanlady said:
OK very slowly. In Vancouver we have known who is buying our team for over a year, but the expression of interest in the team only became formal at the end of August.

Oh we do, do we? Which is why when this *rumour* was announced on Sept. 13th, no one had heard anything about the guy before.
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=103365

Of course, previously we were also sold to that Russian guy, and we all know how that turned out. :shakehead

Rumours and speculation don't mean squat.

Why can't I shake the feeling that this is Mrs. Benjamin?
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
PecaFan said:
Oh we do, do we? Which is why when this *rumour* was announced on Sept. 13th, no one had heard anything about the guy before.
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=103365

Of course, previously we were also sold to that Russian guy, and we all know how that turned out. :shakehead

Rumours and speculation don't mean squat.

Why can't I shake the feeling that this is Mrs. Benjamin?

Don't know who Mrs Benjamin is, but I hate to break it to you, but the Sandman Group was mentioned at the same time as the Russian. Every season ticket holder in Vancouver has known the team has been up for sale and that McCaw was negotiating with a few interested parties, before last season. This information was all over Canucks.com before the end of last season.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
vanlady said:
Don't know who Mrs Benjamin is, but I hate to break it to you, but the Sandman Group was mentioned at the same time as the Russian. Every season ticket holder in Vancouver has known the team has been up for sale and that McCaw was negotiating with a few interested parties, before last season. This information was all over Canucks.com before the end of last season.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is the Canucks have been rumoured to be up for sale for some length of time?

What that has to do with your assertations about the AVs, I'm less clear on.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
quat said:
Perhaps what you are trying to say is the Canucks have been rumoured to be up for sale for some length of time?

What that has to do with your assertations about the AVs, I'm less clear on.

The same rumors complete with owner name were around the summer of 94 prior to the lockout.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
The Nordiques were going bankrupt werent they? Thats why they moved to a city that had it previously lost its team because of money and market and bankruptcy. A small market too. Colorado was supposed to be too poor to match the Rangers offer sheet for Sakic. Prompting calls for CBA changes because poor small market Colorado, who had already lost one team, could nt possibly compete. Where would they get the money?

petrobruin said:
You are a Sens fan didin't your last owner declare the business in ottawa bankrupt.

Didn't that send any message


Petr

Why yes, it did send a message.

It sent the message that the reason the team was losing money had nothing to with salaries but ownership structure. It also sent the message that it didnt matter if the owners went bankrupt, the team still survives. We learned that, who cares if the owner goes bankrupt. Peltz, Bryden, and Melnyk all fought to make the exclusive bid for the team. The other 4 werent considered frontrunners and one was a kook. Buffalo also had multiple bidders. They always sell at the right price. The owner may lose some money just like my friend did on his restaurant two times, but the owner is not the team. Thats the message i learned. So what if he loses money, another always comes along to try
 

petrobruin

Registered User
Mar 19, 2002
683
28
London Ont.
Visit site
Simple 101 Econmics

thinkwild said:
The Nordiques were going bankrupt werent they? Thats why they moved to a city that had it previously lost its team because of money and market and bankruptcy. A small market too. Colorado was supposed to be too poor to match the Rangers offer sheet for Sakic. Prompting calls for CBA changes because poor small market Colorado, who had already lost one team, could nt possibly compete. Where would they get the money?



Why yes, it did send a message.

It sent the message that the reason the team was losing money had nothing to with salaries but ownership structure. It also sent the message that it didnt matter if the owners went bankrupt, the team still survives. We learned that, who cares if the owner goes bankrupt. Peltz, Bryden, and Melnyk all fought to make the exclusive bid for the team. The other 4 werent considered frontrunners and one was a kook. Buffalo also had multiple bidders. They always sell at the right price. The owner may lose some money just like my friend did on his restaurant two times, but the owner is not the team. Thats the message i learned. So what if he loses money, another always comes along to try

With franchise after franchise declaring bankruptcy the value of every team in the league drops in value.

Its alot like real estate Location Location Location,there are good investments and there are bad investments .

Hockey (nhl) is not considered a good investment anymore


Petr
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Another question for the pro-NHLPAers

If revenues could be accurately calculated by an independant group, would you have an issue with linking salaries to revenue?

If not, why not?
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Thunderstruck said:
If revenues could be accurately calculated by an independant group, would you have an issue with linking salaries to revenue?

If not, why not?

If you have a 3rd party using Sabannes and Oxley rules for accounting that has absolutely no obligation or connection to the owners and this 3rd party has people at all 30 teams you bet. I have no problem then, will the owners go for it, not a chance. To many of them are under the microscope for accounting practices now, they're not going to agree to anyone having that free access to there books.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
petrobruin said:
With franchise after franchise declaring bankruptcy the value of every team in the league drops in value.

Its alot like real estate Location Location Location,there are good investments and there are bad investments .

Hockey (nhl) is not considered a good investment anymore


Petr

Then the league needs to be very choosy about who they let into the ownership club. Buffalo's bankruptcy is directly related to the fraudulent behavior of their owner. The team could not pay when the Adelphia bankrupcy trustee came calling for the 160 million that Rigas illegally borrowed to by the team.

Let's not even get into Ottawa, Firestone should never have been given a franchise. When the guy starts building the arena without any financing in place you knew he was doomed to fail. And why did Garry give a team to someone without the proper financing?
 

SENSible1*

Guest
vanlady said:
If you have a 3rd party using Sabannes and Oxley rules for accounting that has absolutely no obligation or connection to the owners and this 3rd party has people at all 30 teams you bet. I have no problem then, will the owners go for it, not a chance. To many of them are under the microscope for accounting practices now, they're not going to agree to anyone having that free access to there books.

The PA has NEVER taken that stance.

In fact, it is their biggest PR blunder and the real reason for their bad press.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Thunderstruck said:
The PA has NEVER taken that stance.

In fact, it is their biggest PR blunder and the real reason for their bad press.

Who said I was 100% on the players side in this? I am very anti owner though.
 

CoolburnIsGone

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
If revenues could be accurately calculated by an independant group, would you have an issue with linking salaries to revenue?

If not, why not?
Only if it wasn't league-wide and done individually in each market. So if the linking percentage is 60% of revenue went to salaries, then that 60% is based on each market's revenues. Then you have a salary cap that would be individualized and really the equivalent of each team setting a budget based on their own revenue stream but it would be a forced budget (so yes the Rangers would have a higher cap than say the Panthers because NY has a bigger revenue stream). I can't see the accuracy of linking league-wise revenue with league-wide salaries when you don't have equal marketplaces for every franchise.
 

BAdvocate

Mediocrity is the enemy of any Dynasty
Feb 27, 2003
5,366
1,990
youtu.be
sjb3599 said:
Here's a question. Why don't the pro-owner people tell me why a hard cap is better than a soft cap?

Look at Baseball....you still have huge discrepancies between what the big-market & small-market teams spend on their payrolls. You also typically have the same big-market teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals) in the playoffs/Finals every season.

Look at Football & Basketball....you have even payrolls. You have different teams challenging for the playoffs/championship every year.

A salary cap has evened the playing field for Football & Basketball.

A luxury tax has maintained the uneven playing field in Baseball.

A hard cap is best for competitiveness, the sport, and all fans (not just the fans in big-market cities).
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Buddhaful said:
Look at Baseball....you still have huge discrepancies between what the big-market & small-market teams spend on their payrolls. You also typically have the same big-market teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals) in the playoffs/Finals every season.

Look at Football & Basketball....you have even payrolls. You have different teams challenging for the playoffs/championship every year.

A salary cap has evened the playing field for Football & Basketball.

A luxury tax has maintained the uneven playing field in Baseball.

A hard cap is best for competitiveness, the sport, and all fans (not just the fans in big-market cities).

First Basketball is a soft cap, with a luxury tax and revenue sharing. Basketball is probabally the worst example of competative balance in history. When was the last time the Lakers failed to make the playoffs? When was the last time Portland actually had a shot at the Championships?

As far as football here let me provide you with links.

http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C909C317-99F4-4C1C-BF34-61492A8FD43A/0/0402.pdf
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/new...ts.The.League.All.At.Once-540634.shtml?page=1

Just what was the Cap in football set at in 2002? 71.1 million have a look at payrolls for that year.

http://www.theredzone.org/payroll.asp

The NFL cap is not as hard as people think. Being able to spread signing bonuses and other ways of getting around the cap are common, but it also gets teams in huge difficulty. Have a look

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1572112.html
http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1339953.html
 

degroat*

Guest
vanlady said:
First Basketball is a soft cap, with a luxury tax and revenue sharing. Basketball is probabally the worst example of competative balance in history. When was the last time the Lakers failed to make the playoffs? When was the last time Portland actually had a shot at the Championships?

You anti-cap people can't have it both ways. You sit here and claim that problem with the cap is that it prevents teams from keeping their teams together and then criticize the NBA's system that allows teams to stay together because of the Lary Bird Rule.

Here are Portland's winning percentages over the last number of years: .500, .610, .598, .610, .719, .700, .561, .598, .537, .537, .573, .622, .595, .768

Claiming that the Trail Blazers have not won a championship because of the system in the NBA is like me claiming the Blues haven't won one because of the system in the NHL. Both teams have performed admirably in the regular season but fail time and time again in the postseason.

As far as football here let me provide you with links.

http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C909C317-99F4-4C1C-BF34-61492A8FD43A/0/0402.pdf
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/new...ts.The.League.All.At.Once-540634.shtml?page=1

Just what was the Cap in football set at in 2002? 71.1 million have a look at payrolls for that year.

http://www.theredzone.org/payroll.asp

The NFL cap is not as hard as people think. Being able to spread signing bonuses and other ways of getting around the cap are common, but it also gets teams in huge difficulty. Have a look

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1572112.html
http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1339953.html

What point are you trying to make here? You seem ecstatic to point out that the NFL teams were over the cap in 2002 and then you follow that up with an explanation of why there were teams over the cap.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
RichPanther said:
Only if it wasn't league-wide and done individually in each market. So if the linking percentage is 60% of revenue went to salaries, then that 60% is based on each market's revenues. Then you have a salary cap that would be individualized and really the equivalent of each team setting a budget based on their own revenue stream but it would be a forced budget (so yes the Rangers would have a higher cap than say the Panthers because NY has a bigger revenue stream). I can't see the accuracy of linking league-wise revenue with league-wide salaries when you don't have equal marketplaces for every franchise.

What you are proposing is completely useless. The whole point of a cap is to level the playing field. Revenues are calculated league wide so that no team can inflate salaries by having a bigger cap.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Stich said:
What point are you trying to make here? You seem ecstatic to point out that the NFL teams were over the cap in 2002 and then you follow that up with an explanation of why there were teams over the cap.

Yup, I don't get it. She keeps saying "cap bad, cap bad", yet continues to prove in thread after thread that caps are inneffectual in controlling salaries or spending.
 

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
vanlady said:
... will the owners go for it, not a chance. To many of them are under the microscope for accounting practices now, they're not going to agree to anyone having that free access to there books.


How can you possibly make this statement?

Wether you agree with the idea of a cap or not, wether a hard cap is agreed to or not, wether it's a luxury tax, revenue sharing so on and so forth, as soon as the NHL decided that they wanted to tie spending to revenue in ANY manner they also conceded to exactly the opposite of the claim you just made.

They HAVE to reach an agreement with the PA as to what accounting practices are used, what revenues count and any other relevant financial details that may apply in order to determine the percentages and/or hard dollar numbers that they will base the CBA on.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
copperandblue said:
How can you possibly make this statement?

Wether you agree with the idea of a cap or not, wether a hard cap is agreed to or not, wether it's a luxury tax, revenue sharing so on and so forth, as soon as the NHL decided that they wanted to tie spending to revenue in ANY manner they also conceded to exactly the opposite of the claim you just made.

They HAVE to reach an agreement with the PA as to what accounting practices are used, what revenues count and any other relevant financial details that may apply in order to determine the percentages and/or hard dollar numbers that they will base the CBA on.

Exactly. The silence from the union on this matter has been telling.

It is far more convenient to sit on the sidelines saying "we don't trust your numbers", than to negotiate how they are calculated and by whom.

If the players really don't believe the game is spending too much on salaries and hiding revenue, then prove it by calling the owners bluff. They won't because they know the problem is real and want no real part in addressing it.

That, in a nutshell, should tell the intelligent individual where their loyalties should lie.
 

CoolburnIsGone

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
What you are proposing is completely useless. The whole point of a cap is to level the playing field. Revenues are calculated league wide so that no team can inflate salaries by having a bigger cap.
Prove that it is completely useless. I quote myself here, "I can't see the accuracy of linking league-wise revenue with league-wide salaries when you don't have equal marketplaces for every franchise." How the hell can you have a level playing field when there is no possible way that every franchise has the same circumstances in every possible way?? Personally, I have never heard of anyone propose what I suggested before. Maybe someone has and that's where I got it from. But I don't think its ever been tried before, so how can you say its completely useless with no proof? Hell I'd like to see all the pro-salary cap people prove to me that any form of a cap (either soft or hard) is GUARANTEED with 0% chance of failure to fix the league's problem (without referencing any other sport's CBA and/or cap plan). No one knows what plan will work, regardless of how the other leagues have done it with their CBA's, for the NHL because there are too many differences to factor in.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Go back and re-think your proposal.

See if you can figure out the ramifications in any given year of the Rangers being capped at $60M to the Panthers $20M.

Once you've managed that, try figuring out the long term effect of this disparity.

Here's a hint. Under your proposal, the Rangers would be able to drive up salaries and even if the Panthers owners wanted to lose money to keep a talented team togther, your system wouldn't allow him to.

How the hell can you have a level playing field when there is no possible way that every franchise has the same circumstances in every possible way??

How the hell could you fail to notice the Green Bay Packers playing on equal footing with the NY Giants and having more success over the past decade?

The circumstances don't need to be the same IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY, as long as all teams can only spend the same amount.

Really, your idea is beyond useless in that it not only fails to address the problem, it actually makes it far worse.
 

degroat*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
What are you? Nine years old?

Considering this thread has been here for days and you are the only one that has attacked me for my comment, perhaps we should be asking your age?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->