Brian Burke Claim there is a Big Split on Replacement Players ..
- Thread starter Mess
- Start date
- Status
Mess
Global Moderator
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 186,623
- 38,603
of course there is a split because the smart owners/ owners who make money (the ones who know what they're doing a la Flyers, Wild, Canucks, Leafs) know they're still going to or will lose money because everyone on the planet (whether they admit it or not) know that no one is going to show up to watch replacement players
I thought pursuiting ones own agenda was grounds for discipline here?Splatman Phanutier said:WebCT advertising?
****in WebCT
Steering this ship back to port: No surprise here that Replacements would be frowned upon in some cases. Then again, I think a lot of owners want to see a deal get done, since the NHLPA has done nothing but dance around the issues and rarely offer insight into what their agenda really is.
In the same video, Bob McKenzie says the players proposal had a payroll range of $20 million, which the owners thought was way too high. Lends some credibility to the $30-$50 million proposal we had been hearing about.
So the owners are divided on revenue sharing and the owners are divided on whether to use replacements, while the PA is getting accused of stalling?
Seems like the solution is simple, you either accept the $20 million range or you ramp up revenue sharing significantly so you can have a $10 million range (i.e. $35 to $45 million range). It's all with the owners now.
So the owners are divided on revenue sharing and the owners are divided on whether to use replacements, while the PA is getting accused of stalling?
Seems like the solution is simple, you either accept the $20 million range or you ramp up revenue sharing significantly so you can have a $10 million range (i.e. $35 to $45 million range). It's all with the owners now.
me2
Go ahead foot
gc2005 said:
$20m range isn't a problem ie $20m-$40m would work just fine for the owners. I think $22.5m-$42.5m would be best (plenty of salary cap room for rebuilding).
TO is being peculiar in this. They are getting upset at giving $15m of the teachers retirement money to other teams but happy to give $25-30m (above cap) of the teachers retirement money to players.
So what exactly happens if there are several teams (or heck, even just one team) that flat out says "no we will not use replacement players"?
Can the league still go forward with a replacement season without that team or teams? I don't imagine they can outright force teams to ice replacement players but are there some kind of sanctions that can be levied against a team that does something like this?
just wondering...
Can the league still go forward with a replacement season without that team or teams? I don't imagine they can outright force teams to ice replacement players but are there some kind of sanctions that can be levied against a team that does something like this?
just wondering...
me2 said:$20m range isn't a problem ie $20m-$40m would work just fine for the owners. I think $22.5m-$42.5m would be best (plenty of salary cap room for rebuilding).
TO is being peculiar in this. They are getting upset at giving $15m of the teachers retirement money to other teams but happy to give $25-30m (above cap) of the teachers retirement money to players.
I think Toronto fans would much rather have money spent on players that would (at least in theory) make the team better than to give money to other teams to help them out. Which makes sense if they are completely narrow minded and don't care about the league.
But Toronto can't have it both ways. They can't have a low salary cap AND not pay anything out in revenue sharing. A cap anywhere in the $40's would save them $20 million a year at least, less say $10 or $15 for revenue sharing and they're still a heck of a lot more profitable.
go kim johnsson said:
Well, I wouldn't say "no one" - actually, I know a lot of fans in my area that are more committed to buying tickets for replacement players, than they are for spending money to watch the NHLPA players.
I don't think any team really wants to give away revenues...but there's a lot of things no one wants to do in this whole mess so something has to give here eventually
if it's not giving away a lot and you're restrained by a cap anyways (so you can't use the money on improving your team through players anyways) then it should be workable.
but who knows, these people are all nuts
if it's not giving away a lot and you're restrained by a cap anyways (so you can't use the money on improving your team through players anyways) then it should be workable.
but who knows, these people are all nuts
I imagine that people will watch for the first week or little while and then attendence will drop off. It's one thing to say you'll do it, it's another to spend the time, money, and effort to watch ECHL level hockey in NHL garb
barnburner said:
Can't be a healthy situation when you are marketing entertainment to people who you hope will spend money, not because they will enjoy the product (in this case, terrible low-level hockey played by scrubs in real uniforms) but because they think their spending will be a giant middle finger towards a group of people they don't like. How long can that possibly last?
You literally have to have money to burn, with a lot of time on your hands, if that is why you are choosing to buy tickets for replacements.
Levitate said:
The league can (and will) force teams to use replacements, if needed. Teams could of course choose to leave the league over the issue, but I doubt any are that opposed to the idea.
do you have anything to back this up or are you just saying what you think is true?
There's no way the league can force teams to use replacement players...but I don't know what kind of sanctions they can force on ones that don't...can they really kick them out of the league? Somehow I doubt it's that easy and this would involve a huge messy legal procedure
CREW99AW
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2002
- 40,928
- 3,389
Levitate said:
In one of Brooks articles this week,he wrote teams are saying they'll slash tix prices by 75% if they use replacement players.
and don't be so sure it'll just be ECHL level hockey in NHL garb.
Peca gave a recent interview saying he expects some nhlers to cross over and play for financial reasons.
DiPietro's quoted saying he's been going stir with no hockey and that while older guys like Modano can afford to take a yr off,young guys need to play for financial reasons.
Kolnik's a young family guy,who's already expressed his willingness to play under a cap.
Levitate said:
The league can force a team to do anything it wants, including moving or finding new ownership. The NHL teams are franchises and have obligations to do what the league says, abiding by their franchise agreement. If the league votes for replacement players each team will have to field replacement players or face sanctions (massive fines), be forced to sell the team to other interests, or possible revocation of their charter and termination of the franchise. The league has a lot of power because they are a franchise operation. All of this will be outlined in the franchise agreement, one which each ownership group has signed and agreed to uphold.
The Iconoclast said:
That's great for owner solidarity. Great way to send a message to the union that all's well in replacement world. Force 10 teams to play against their will with replacement players because Gary says so. Fine the Red Wings $20 million because they don't want to use scabs. Force the Maple Leafs to sell the team and move it to Seattle where no one will even know they're using replacements. Revoke Montreal's franchise because they might not be able to use scabs due to provincial legislation, not to mention fan backlash. What a joke.
Even if all teams are "forced", as you say, you can't get fined for incompetent management. Give away tickets for free. Sign Manute Bol, your neighbours and BOD's children to play for the Flyers. Make an effort to ice the worst possible team mankind has ever seen just to embarass the league. What the hell, if that's what Gary wants, go for it.
HockeyCritter
Registered User
- Dec 10, 2004
- 5,656
- 0
It’s been stated numerous times before, but it bears repeating; the big boys will either have to use replacement players or agree to revenue sharing.
me2 said:TO is being peculiar in this. They are getting upset at giving $15m of the teachers retirement money to other teams but happy to give $25-30m (above cap) of the teachers retirement money to players.
What on earth is peculiar about that??
HockeyCritter
Registered User
- Dec 10, 2004
- 5,656
- 0
Sure management could follow such a plan – but ask yourself this, what would be the long term repercussions for your franchise? Despite what you claim, the majority of fans would be severally disappointed if your franchise elected to embarrass the league. Sure, short term you might feel good, but is it worth it to be blacklisted by the other owners and GMs? Is that one moment of thumbing your nose at the League offices worth alienation of fans, sponsors, and other franchises?gc2005 said:
Some how the adage of “don’t cut your nose off to spite your face†comes to mind – sage advice.
gc2005 said:
You know, you really should THINK about what you write before you start posting. You don't see the great irony when its your players union holding the association together by threatening to take away pay or force the membership to pay it back should they cross the line and play for a team without NHLPA approval? Yeah, that's a great way to send a message about PA solidarity to the WORLD that all's well in the NHLPA world!
That is the deal the owners made when they signed on. That is the deal the owners made when they agreed to give Bettman the power to negotiate this solution. They all read the fine print and they all knew where this was headed all the way back to 1999. The league has given the teams plenty of options, its up to the teams to select the one that works best for them.
Yup, that would sure show the league. It would sure show the fan base as well! We can't compete without over-spending as we do have the incompetant management that you think we do, and we'll prove it by icing the worst product possible! Again, do you bother to think before you post?
Here's something very interesting for the replacement player argument. Here are the rosters of the Washington Capitals (a random team) from 1999-2000. This is really only four seasons ago, but it shows the incredible turnover that a team will face in a very short time.
1999-2000
77 Adam Oates (Edmonton)
55 Sergei Gonchar
17 Chris Simon (Calgary)
22 Steve Konowalchuk (Colorado)
12 Peter Bondra (Ottawa)
10 Ulf Dahlen (retired)
44 Richard Zednik (Montreal)
6 Calle Johansson (Toronto)
8 Jan Bulis (Montreal)
11 Jeff Halpern
13 Andrei Nikolishin (Colorado)
27 Terry Yake (Europe)
14 Joe Sacco (retired)
15 Dmitri Mironov
2 Ken Klee (Toronto)
20 Glen Metropolit
28 James Black (out of the system)
33 Jim McKenzie (Nashville)
19 Brendan Witt
29 Joe Reekie (Chicago)
21 Jeff Toms (out of the system)
* Jaroslav Svejkovsky (retired)
36 Mike Eagles (retired)
4 Alexei Tezikov (out of the system)
24 Rob Zettler (retired)
37 Olaf Kolzig
23 Miika Elomo (out of the system)
38 Nolan Baumgartner (out of the system)
25 Barrie Moore (out of the system)
39 Alexandre Volchkov (out of the system)
3 Jamie Huscroft (retired)
1 Craig Billington (retired)
That is six holdovers from four seasons ago, or only about 18% of the team remaining. The bottom line is that each and every year you are cheering for replacements, whether you want to admit it or not. Its the nature of the game. You PA folk have to get over it already. Most fans recognize this and have learned to cheer for the team, not the clowns in the jerseys.
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
The Iconoclast said:
Most people do cheer for the jersey, and not the name on the back. There is a rather large difference between replacing Janne Niinimaa with Dan McGillis and then replacing him with Marcus Ragnarsson .... than replacing Jeremy Roenick and Kim Johnsson with Peter White and John Slaney.
- Status
