Andy Murray doesn't want cap??

[Motown Beatdown]

Got this off sportsnet in the hearsay section. Did anyone in Vancouver hear this???



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/hearsay.jsp

Click to read more...

 

[mymkovski]

He said he doesn't want a cap, however he also explains that the players need to realize the necessity of a cap for the future of the NHL.

 

[X8oD]

Got this off sportsnet in the hearsay section. Did anyone in Vancouver hear this???



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/hearsay.jsp

wanting and Needing in order to survive are not the same things.

I bet you 100% of the NHL GMs doesnt want a cap. They would prefer that the business be well enough to support itself like MLB does.

But i bet 100% of the NHL Gms Need a Cap in order to turn their business around, and 80% of the GMs need a cap in order to keep their team around to SEE it turn around.

perfect world, no cap, everybody is making money, and NHL is a top 2 sport. Reality, Teams need a Cap, Player saleries are The worst in relation to revenue then of any Sport in the world, and the NHL is barely a Major 4 Sport.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

He said he doesn't want a cap, however he also explains that the players need to realize the necessity of a cap for the future of the NHL.

yeah i know, but i found it interesting Murray is really the 1st guy who serves as GM, Coach or President that came out and said they didn't want a cap.

 

[PecaFan]

Talk about totally misreading somebody's statement. He's not saying he doesn't support a cap. He's saying he wishes it hadn't come to this.

It's like the parent who says "I shouldn't have to force a curfew" on his daughter. Had things been done properly, grounding or a curfew would not have been needed.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Talk about totally misreading somebody's statement. He's not saying he doesn't support a cap. He's saying he wishes it hadn't come to this.

It's like the parent who says "I shouldn't have to force a curfew" on his daughter. Had things been done properly, grounding or a curfew would not have been needed.

I'd say that you're mistaken. Based upon the following, I think it's abundantly clear that he does NOT want a cap, and thinks that a "free enterprise system", (as he puts it), should be the law of the land:


"Andy Murray, bench boss of the Los Angeles Kings, told the Team 1040 in Vancouver that he doesn't believe the league should adopt a salary cap. "It's a free enterprise system," Murray said, "and the Kings should be able to pay money based on the revenues they earn." While Murray does't like the idea of a cap, he understands that may be the only way to fix the league's current woes."

 

[CarlRacki]

"Andy Murray, bench boss of the Los Angeles Kings, told the Team 1040 in Vancouver that he doesn't believe the league should adopt a salary cap. "It's a free enterprise system," Murray said, "and the Kings should be able to pay money based on the revenues they earn." While Murray does't like the idea of a cap, he understands that may be the only way to fix the league's current woes."

Well, for starters he's wrong. A professional sports league is most definitely not a free enterprise system. It's a collective where the good of the whole (i.e. the league) supersedes the good of its individual members.
Or, as a guy who knows a little about running a professional sports league once said:

“Free market economics is the process of driving enterprises out of business. Sports league economics is the process of keeping enterprises in business. There is nothing like a sports league. Nothing.†Paul Tagliabue, (Sports Illustrated, 10/16/96).

 

[Hasbro]

I don't want to get a flu shot... but I need one

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Hes changed sides in this war there is no room for a fake soldier like I would expect the Kings to do the right thing and fire him.

 

[Russian Fan]

wanting and Needing in order to survive are not the same things.

I bet you 100% of the NHL GMs doesnt want a cap. They would prefer that the business be well enough to support itself like MLB does.

But i bet 100% of the NHL Gms Need a Cap in order to turn their business around, and 80% of the GMs need a cap in order to keep their team around to SEE it turn around.

perfect world, no cap, everybody is making money, and NHL is a top 2 sport. Reality, Teams need a Cap, Player saleries are The worst in relation to revenue then of any Sport in the world, and the NHL is barely a Major 4 Sport.

No Cap but 100% REVENUE SHARING = top 2 sports

Cap is a myth.

 

[CarlRacki]

No Cap but 100% REVENUE SHARING = top 2 sports

Cap is a myth.

Come again?

 

[kerrly]

No Cap but 100% REVENUE SHARING = top 2 sports

Cap is a myth.

Please elaborate???

 

[Russian Fan]

Come again?

it's my opinion but I never thought the NFL was successful because they have a cap.

I never thought the NBA was successful because they a soft cap.

REVENU SHARING is what will make 30 markets successful & able to be competitive.

Mix that with a non-related business but so important to make the NHL successful. Stiffer actions on the rules. (Referee)

Did you notice that 3rd & goal in the NFL with a possibility to win the game, if the team do something wrong, it will be CALLED ?

99-98 in the NBA , 3 seconds to go in the game, if a penalty need to be call. Too bad it's over.

In hockey we tend to think that doing that is changing the results of the game but I always thought it's the opposite.

To get back on the revenue sharing , I don't see how the bottom 10 teams financially can succeed financially with a cap between 32 to 40M$ when those team doesn't have more revenue but more expenses.

 

[CarlRacki]

it's my opinion but I never thought the NFL was successful because they have a cap.

I never thought the NBA was successful because they a soft cap.

REVENU SHARING is what will make 30 markets successful & able to be competitive.

Mix that with a non-related business but so important to make the NHL successful. Stiffer actions on the rules. (Referee)

Did you notice that 3rd & goal in the NFL with a possibility to win the game, if the team do something wrong, it will be CALLED ?

99-98 in the NBA , 3 seconds to go in the game, if a penalty need to be call. Too bad it's over.

In hockey we tend to think that doing that is changing the results of the game but I always thought it's the opposite.

To get back on the revenue sharing , I don't see how the bottom 10 teams financially can succeed financially with a cap between 32 to 40M$ when those team doesn't have more revenue but more expenses.

OK, but just so you know neither the NFL or NBA have 100 percent revenue sharing. The NFL's is closer to 67 percent and the NBA's is roughly 35 percent.

I agree with you on the penalty situation.

And to answer your final question, the league's last CBA proposal guaranteed there would be enough revenue sharing so that every team could afford payrolls within the proscribed salary range.

 

[Russian Fan]

OK, but just so you know neither the NFL or NBA have 100 percent revenue sharing. The NFL's is closer to 67 percent and the NBA's is roughly 35 percent.

I agree with you on the penalty situation.

maybe I exagerate the 100% revenue sharing but in the NHL , my opinion is that it will need more than 35% to save the league.

Aside to get me back on the numbers of what the other sports are using to share their revenues. Don't you think revenue sharing is far more important than a cap that doesn't adress the bottom 10 of the league financially ?

 

[kerrly]

it's my opinion but I never thought the NFL was successful because they have a cap.

I never thought the NBA was successful because they a soft cap.

REVENU SHARING is what will make 30 markets successful & able to be competitive.

Mix that with a non-related business but so important to make the NHL successful. Stiffer actions on the rules. (Referee)

Did you notice that 3rd & goal in the NFL with a possibility to win the game, if the team do something wrong, it will be CALLED ?

99-98 in the NBA , 3 seconds to go in the game, if a penalty need to be call. Too bad it's over.

In hockey we tend to think that doing that is changing the results of the game but I always thought it's the opposite.

To get back on the revenue sharing , I don't see how the bottom 10 teams financially can succeed financially with a cap between 32 to 40M$ when those team doesn't have more revenue but more expenses.

Revenue sharing works in complete conjunction with a cap. Revenue sharing alone still allows markets to skyrocket past others with big money to spend on players. I agree that MEANINGFUL revenue sharing needs to be part of the next CBA along with linkage, or else it would be disaster with only one or the other. Its seems alot of pro PA'ers are unfamiliar with the NHL's plan to implement revenue sharing. Please read this......

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=125951

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Man is the Canadian media always this bad at reporting? It was a LA radio station interview conducted by Lee Hacksaw Hamilton. His comments are taken out of context and spun to hype up some type of media controversy for people to discuss.
He did not say that he thinks there shouldn't be a salary cap.

 

[CarlRacki]

Aside to get me back on the numbers of what the other sports are using to share their revenues. Don't you think revenue sharing is far more important than a cap that doesn't adress the bottom 10 of the league financially ?

No. I think you need them both. Or if not a cap, some serious disincentive for extreme spending.
Unless you have 100 percent revenue sharing - and nobody does - some teams will always have more money than others. This is because of market size, ticket demand, broadcast fees, etc. And some owners of those more prosperous teams will be willing always to use their inherent financial advanatges to outbid the less wealthy teams for elite players. The only thing that can somewhat even the playing field is a cap or a severe tax. And by severe, I mean something significantly more than what the PA is proposing or the NBA's 50 cents on the dollar.

 

[Russian Fan]

Revenue sharing works in complete conjunction with a cap. Revenue sharing alone still allows markets to skyrocket past others with big money to spend on players. I agree that MEANINGFUL revenue sharing needs to be part of the next CBA along with linkage, or else it would be disaster with only one or the other. Its seems alot of pro PA'ers are unfamiliar with the NHL's plan to implement revenue sharing. Please read this......

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=125951

We both agree on it. A cap will prevent marginal 2nd & 3rd players salaries to escalate but it won't help any team financially.

A substantial revenu-sharing needs to be done but with everything I read, the owners who are not suppose to be greedy at all (poll on HF lol) does not have intention to do so because it's not in the tradition.

I don't mind if the players cave or not over the hard cap thing, I'm not a pro-player more than I simply don't trust the owners.

They wish to get rid of the traditional free market for a cap but they claim tradition when it's time to put money on their pockey to help their partners (if really they classified themselves as partners).

Contract Carolina or help them if you think that in 10-15 years, people in Carolina (I use that city as an example only) will love hockey & support them. (I believe non-traditional hockey market can be a good hockey market someday , as long as we help them developing the hockey tradition in the area. Montreal , Toronto, Boston, Philly wasn't born with hockey genes just like that)

 

[Russian Fan]

No. I think you need them both. Or if not a cap, some serious disincentive for extreme spending.
Unless you have 100 percent revenue sharing - and nobody does - some teams will always have more money than others. This is because of market size, ticket demand, broadcast fees, etc. And some owners of those more prosperous teams will be willing always to use their inherent financial advanatges to outbid the less wealthy teams for elite players. The only thing that can somewhat even the playing field is a cap or a severe tax. And by severe, I mean something significantly more than what the PA is proposing or the NBA's 50 cents on the dollar.

I agree with mostly everything that you say but again, I find it very hypocretical that owners want ''partnership'' with the PA but does not intend to be partners with each other.

Sharing the playoff money is like give you 4% vacancy payroll every year because you don't need it.

Let the huge market be what they are with the spending because they have the ''natural'' revenue they have for being in the market they are
OR
The owners should act as if the NHL were a entity & not 30 individual business franchise. Let's compete in hockey but let's be partners in $$$$.

That's the way I see it

 

[PecaFan]

I'd say that you're mistaken. Based upon the following, I think it's abundantly clear that he does NOT want a cap, and thinks that a "free enterprise system", (as he puts it), should be the law of the land:

"Andy Murray, bench boss of the Los Angeles Kings, told the Team 1040 in Vancouver that he doesn't believe the league should adopt a salary cap. "It's a free enterprise system," Murray said, "and the Kings should be able to pay money based on the revenues they earn." While Murray does't like the idea of a cap, he understands that may be the only way to fix the league's current woes."

Lovely highlighting. Only problem is Murray didn't say that part. That's editorial comment by the article writer. This is what Murray said, and it's undisputable:

"It's a free enterprise system, and the Kings should be able to pay money based on the revenues they earn."

"Unfortunately, the players have yet to come to the realization that they have to step up and realize they have to help the owners run this more efficiently and a salary cap is the only way this can happen."

Exactly what I said before. He doesn't like the idea of a cap and thinks the league "Should be able" to run without a cap, theoretically. Unfortunately, reality is "a salary cap is the only way this can happen".