Brooks:NHLPA proposal details

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Kritter471 said:
Gah.

The NFL is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT BEAST than the NHL when it comes to this issue.

Point a.) the NFL only went to scabs because they had iron-clad TV contracts and had to put a product out there in order to get that revenue.

Point 2.) the NFL drew horribly at the gate during the scab era, and the NHL, being a gate-revenue league, would probably lose more in operating costs in most cities for simply fielding a team of scabs.

Point pi.) The NFL is a brand marketing league. I work for the Dallas Cowboys and probably could name 40 of their players off the top of my head (out of 52 +8 practice squad). Most hard-core fans could only name the two sets of starters, the quarterbacks and perhaps a layers of backups/special teams guys. What draws people is the Dallas Cowboys brand, not the chance to see a young Patrick Crayton make his NFL debut or Dat Nguyen play linebacker. Conversely, the chance to see a Progner or Chelios play in a given city is what draws a lot of fans to a rink. There's only two teams I can legitimately call brand marketed to an extent that works throughout the league (i.e., home and away) - The Leafs and the Canadiens. The Bruins, Hawks and Rangers had that going, but their recent issues with ownership have shown the organizations true colors, and the Wings have it now but in the mid-80s had a horrible time drawing (I believe, I could be wrong here).
You may also have missed the most important point .. NFL players have no other options vitually to play outside the NFL in general .. Hockey is played the world around and we saw how many found some sort of employment and revenue during the dispute. Even more importantly allowed them to keep playing the sport they love and keep themselves in game shape as a result ..
 

Master Shake*

Guest
nikeisevil said:
Brooks actually makes a good point here:



The league has to improve its revenue sharing. They are probably holding it as their last card to get the union to agree to a CBA. Basically they will have all the nitty gritty done and then finally capitulate on the revenue sharing.

I can only hope.


That would be the best thing the PA can go after. Major revenue sharing. Thats where they have alot of allies on the owners side.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Kritter471 said:
Gah.

The NFL is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT BEAST than the NHL when it comes to this issue.

Point a.) the NFL only went to scabs because they had iron-clad TV contracts and had to put a product out there in order to get that revenue.

Point 2.) the NFL drew horribly at the gate during the scab era, and the NHL, being a gate-revenue league, would probably lose more in operating costs in most cities for simply fielding a team of scabs.

Point pi.) The NFL is a brand marketing league. I work for the Dallas Cowboys and probably could name 40 of their players off the top of my head (out of 52 +8 practice squad). Most hard-core fans could only name the two sets of starters, the quarterbacks and perhaps a layers of backups/special teams guys. What draws people is the Dallas Cowboys brand, not the chance to see a young Patrick Crayton make his NFL debut or Dat Nguyen play linebacker. Conversely, the chance to see a Progner or Chelios play in a given city is what draws a lot of fans to a rink. There's only two teams I can legitimately call brand marketed to an extent that works throughout the league (i.e., home and away) - The Leafs and the Canadiens. The Bruins, Hawks and Rangers had that going, but their recent issues with ownership have shown the organizations true colors, and the Wings have it now but in the mid-80s had a horrible time drawing (I believe, I could be wrong here).


I think alot more people would show to replacement games for the NHL then the NFL.
Europe is a terrible option for most north american players. They are not enjoying it at all over there by any stretch of the imagination.

Also any losses would be smaller then the previous losses under the old cba.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Pepper said:
:shakehead :shakehead :shakehead

Do you realise that this doesn't help the small market teams at all in terms of competiviness?? Toronto has what 3 times as much revenues as Nashville so they can spend 3 times more than Nashville, don't you realize how ridiculous your proposal is?

Please, I know you like the PA about as much as Brooks but your 'ideas' are getting more and more removed from reality.
That 3 times more is eaten partially up as big market teams pay their players more to live and play in big cities where the cost of living is higher ..

Also by reinvesting that 3 times back into hockey is makes for a better product on the ice which is a direct benefit to the fans that pay to see them . It also grows the sport and provides Bettman a better product to sell to sponsors and provides incentive to get off his a$$ and get National TV Contracts, like the other pro sports.

Would that not be easier to do if Palffy, Kariya, Kovalev, Murray, Demitra, Lindros, etc are on the ice with one of the 30 teams or sitting out because the teams that can afford them, are not allowed to reinvest in the game, and the teams that can't are irrelevant if there is a Hard Cap or not ??.

Would you just rather see that 3 times go into the pockets of the owners as profit with no impact on the game itself on the ice ..

Teams are still bound by 22 players per team and 54% of the Revenue they generate,

How does Nashville benefit by Toronto management sticking 3 times as much money in its own pockets ??
 
Last edited:

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
You may also have missed the most important point .. NFL players have no other options vitually to play outside the NFL in general .. Hockey is played the world around and we saw how many found some sort of employment and revenue during the dispute. Even more importantly allowed them to keep playing the sport they love and keep themselves in game shape as a result ..

And you have also missed a very important point. NHL players are grossly over-paid. The absolute best players would be making 1/3 to 1/4 of what they are making in the NHL if they played in Europe. Most players would make 1/8 to 1/10 of what they could make in the NHL. The NHLPA as a collective are over-paid by about 35-40% based on what the other leagues in the world are willing topay. The NHLPA better get that through their collective heads. The NHLPA has no options either when you actually consider the benefits the players get from playing in the NHL (exceptional pension) versus playing in Europe (ne benefit).
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
How does Nashville benefit by Toronto management sticking 3 times as much money in its own pockets ??

They remain competitive under the same rules and are able to have the same expectations when putting a team together and attempting to keep that team together. That's all anyone can ask for. The fiscal advantage that the "rich" teams have utilized to escalate salaries have ruined the NHL and MLB. There are too many teams that know they have zero chance of competing when a season opens, and those that have built up a good team know it is only a matter of time before the rich teams can raid their talent. That is how "Nashville" benefits from a cap when they are dealing against a corporate owned money pit.

Oh, and Toronto management doesn't stick anything but their pay check in the pocket. The Ontario Teacher's put the money in their retirement pocket, which makes the Maple Leafs nothing but an entertainment based inestment fund (and a very solid one for the teacher's union at that). But nice try and attempting to make it look one owner is making out like a bandit while another is not.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Master Shake said:
I think alot more people would show to replacement games for the NHL then the NFL.
Europe is a terrible option for most north american players. They are not enjoying it at all over there by any stretch of the imagination.

Also any losses would be smaller then the previous losses under the old cba.

I wasn't talking about if the players would cross or not - I was talking about the fan support.

I highly, highly doubt that, over all, there would be more people that showed up to an NHL replacement game than an NFL replacement game. Consider proportions. 70,000 people show up to an Oakland Raiders game on average. During the NFL strike, 7,000 people show. That's 10%. Apply that to most hockey arenas and you get a crowd of 1,800. Heck, let's make it 20% for a crowd of 3,600. That's still only half the crowd of 7,000 the Raiders were drawing. And in some cities (Phoenix, Carolina, Chicago), it'd be less while in most Canadian cities, it'd be more. But my guess is the average would be about 20% capacity.

Now lets take your argument of "losses would be smaller." Average ticket price $40 with a crowd of 3,600 as establised above. That's $144,000 revenue a game or $11,808,000 a season. Now, even with a payroll of $1,000,000 a team ($43,478.26 for 23 players, which I believe is right at the AHL minimum), you have $10,808,000 to cover all costs, including travel, arena opening/closing, auxilliary personal, equiptment, medical costs, insurance and salaried front office.

My suspiscion is two-fold. One, if you're going to bring in quality replacements (from the AHLs, CHLs, ECHLs, Senior Hockey in Canada, UHLs), you'll have to pay them more than $43,000 a season, especially if you think about insurance and drawing players that would make your fans come. And the rest of your expenses would add up to well over $10,000,000 a year.

So if your argument is that "they would lose more by playing under the old CBA," in some cases yes (the Leafs might disagree), but they would definitely operate at a loss. And convincing teams like the Leafs or Stars who generally operate at a fairly significant profit level (the Stars lost $300,000 last year, mostly due to a fall out with the fans over ticket prices which lead to them losing their sell out streak and playing to about 98% capacity on the season) to operate at a loss "for the good of the league" will be a harder sell than you think.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Kritter471 said:
I wasn't talking about if the players would cross or not - I was talking about the fan support.

I highly, highly doubt that, over all, there would be more people that showed up to an NHL replacement game than an NFL replacement game. Consider proportions. 70,000 people show up to an Oakland Raiders game on average. During the NFL strike, 7,000 people show. That's 10%. Apply that to most hockey arenas and you get a crowd of 1,800. Heck, let's make it 20% for a crowd of 3,600. That's still only half the crowd of 7,000 the Raiders were drawing. And in some cities (Phoenix, Carolina, Chicago), it'd be less while in most Canadian cities, it'd be more. But my guess is the average would be about 20% capacity.

Now lets take your argument of "losses would be smaller." Average ticket price $40 with a crowd of 3,600 as establised above. That's $144,000 revenue a game or $11,808,000 a season. Now, even with a payroll of $1,000,000 a team ($43,478.26 for 23 players, which I believe is right at the AHL minimum), you have $10,808,000 to cover all costs, including travel, arena opening/closing, auxilliary personal, equiptment, medical costs, insurance and salaried front office.

My suspiscion is two-fold. One, if you're going to bring in quality replacements (from the AHLs, CHLs, ECHLs, Senior Hockey in Canada, UHLs), you'll have to pay them more than $43,000 a season, especially if you think about insurance and drawing players that would make your fans come. And the rest of your expenses would add up to well over $10,000,000 a year.

So if your argument is that "they would lose more by playing under the old CBA," in some cases yes (the Leafs might disagree), but they would definitely operate at a loss. And convincing teams like the Leafs or Stars who generally operate at a fairly significant profit level (the Stars lost $300,000 last year, mostly due to a fall out with the fans over ticket prices which lead to them losing their sell out streak and playing to about 98% capacity on the season) to operate at a loss "for the good of the league" will be a harder sell than you think.

All teams are losing the same amount of money without playing a game as they would to half filled arenas. Its a no brainer for the owners. Replacements are the way to go. If they get half the arena filled, combined with most replacements making bare min, they would probably actually scrape a small profit.

Hicks has been losing alot of money. Hes been trying to sell for a few years now but couldnt get a taker for him to recoup his losses. Basically he has no real equity. Hes one of the hard liners in all this, and for a very good reason.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
Its odd that Hicks is taking a loss... and his team is valued the second most profitable by Forbes....

lol

:biglaugh:

*edit* rather, it is worth the 2nd most..(behind the $angers)
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
The Iconoclast said:
They remain competitive under the same rules and are able to have the same expectations when putting a team together and attempting to keep that team together. That's all anyone can ask for. The fiscal advantage that the "rich" teams have utilized to escalate salaries have ruined the NHL and MLB. There are too many teams that know they have zero chance of competing when a season opens, and those that have built up a good team know it is only a matter of time before the rich teams can raid their talent. That is how "Nashville" benefits from a cap when they are dealing against a corporate owned money pit.

Oh, and Toronto management doesn't stick anything but their pay check in the pocket. The Ontario Teacher's put the money in their retirement pocket, which makes the Maple Leafs nothing but an entertainment based inestment fund (and a very solid one for the teacher's union at that). But nice try and attempting to make it look one owner is making out like a bandit while another is not.

You do a great job of towing the NHL company line and spewing out the same Bettman defeatist attitude jargan.

An optimist would find ways to build off the strong teams, promote the game and find ways to top up the weaker to decrease the disparity and preconceived $$$ advantage .. That would logically consist of taking money from profits of the better teams and give it to the weaker so they can add that key UFA to increase their chances, and product on the ice and grow the game.

but NO lets go the Bettman way ..

A pessimist would simply throw in the towel, say there is absolutely no way my team can compete therefore the only option is to tear apart the strong so that in comparison my team does not look so bad and unequal .. That would logically be done by, cancelling a season, drying up the Revenue Stream and setting a Hard Cap to cater to the weakest teams, Not promote Revenue Sharing methods and simple giving LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE and NAIVE Fans the feeling that their team is better now in comparison..

Bettman's strategy ... Make Toronto play with Sundin and Belfour and 1/2 a team of AHL players so that Jordin Tootoo and Scottie Upshall look better in comparison when they play Nashville at home for fans.. Forgetting of course that big market teams have 41 regular season home games of which Nashville comes to town once each season, where even diehard fans usually give away their seats to those games ,and real fans flood to the Arena's to see Toronto verses Colorado or Detroit .. Star Power verses Star Power because logically fans want to see the best players possible compete for their entertainment value not the worst possible ones ..

Next thing we are going to hear coming from Bettman is that 20 teams make the playoffs .. but the catch is its the bottom 20, so we can grow the game in the small markets and the top ones are too good and don't give the weak ones a real chance at the CUP .. Of course saying that with all the restraints the NHL is putting on the top teams via the CBA to bring them down, they should have a better then average chance to finish in the bottom in the future and compete they just have to emulate Nashville more in order to succeed in the new NHL ..
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
I wonder why people still think this is about competitive balance. You think any owner gives a crap if Nashville or Columbus or whichever team can get to the Stanley Cup or compete on a fair playing ground? Not bloody likely.. the better a team is the more playoff dates they get. Lets put it this way.. if they could come up with a magical formula that earned everyone profits, but meant that certain teams would never be able to get to the finals, they would do it in a second.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
The Messenger said:
That 3 times more is eaten partially up as big market teams pay their players more to live and play in big cities where the cost of living is higher ..

Big market teams being able to players more makes them more lucrative meaning the playing field is not any more level than currently. Effect of living costs is really marginal.

The Messenger said:
Also by reinvesting that 3 times back into hockey is makes for a better product on the ice which is a direct benefit to the fans that pay to see them .

Yes but you keep missing the point - it doesn't make the smaller teams any more competitive than currently.

The Messenger said:
It also grows the sport and provides Bettman a better product to sell to sponsors and provides incentive to get off his a$$ and get National TV Contracts, like the other pro sports.

Wait, how does the fact that Nashville is fundamentally disadvantaged from the start help growing the sport?? You're living on Planet Strachan.

The Messenger said:
Would that not be easier to do if Palffy, Kariya, Kovalev, Murray, Demitra, Lindros, etc are on the ice with one of the 30 teams or sitting out because the teams that can afford them, are not allowed to reinvest in the game, and the teams that can't are irrelevant if there is a Hard Cap or not ??.

You're so far from reality it's not even funny. Please think twice before posting something like that, it just doesn't make any sense.

The Messenger said:
Would you just rather see that 3 times go into the pockets of the owners as profit with no impact on the game itself on the ice ..

I don't care how much owners make profit, they make the investments, they take all the risks so they are entitled to make profit.

I want to see 30 teams having about the same chance (financially that is) to build a good team, that means closer games which means more entertaining hockey.

Teams are still bound by 22 players per team and 54% of the Revenue they generate,

The Messenger said:
How does Nashville benefit by Toronto management sticking 3 times as much money in its own pockets ??

For the love of god, you have been explained this a million times and you STILL refuse to understand??

Nashville benefits if it has the same financial resources to build a team as Toronto, that makes the team more competitive which increases fan support and makes the game popular in the U.S which is exactly what league needs.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Master Shake said:
All teams are losing the same amount of money without playing a game as they would to half filled arenas. Its a no brainer for the owners. Replacements are the way to go. If they get half the arena filled, combined with most replacements making bare min, they would probably actually scrape a small profit.

Hicks has been losing alot of money. Hes been trying to sell for a few years now but couldnt get a taker for him to recoup his losses. Basically he has no real equity. Hes one of the hard liners in all this, and for a very good reason.

Hicks has been losing a lot of money since the real estate he invested in crashed in value after 9/11. His losses have had nothing to do with his hockey or baseball team and everthing to do with the bad economy. The Stars had been in the black every season until 2003-2004 (with a lower payroll than in 02/03 I believe - could be wrong there) and only lost $300,000 according to Forbes (I did the numbers $200,000 of those losses came from playing to 95% capacity in tickets, not including parking, concessions or suites).

And he is one of the more hard-line owners. But he's not one to make several bad business decisions in a row. His problem is that he overreacts one way or the other (witness: signed A-Rod, Chan Ho Park, Guerin and Turgeon to stupidly high contracts, now won't sign anyone, including home-grown prospects on the Rangers side. Made some really stupid comments in the paper that the Rangers "couldn't afford" to sign anyone big this off-season, and that if 3 million more fans came this year, they'd think about it. This is after the Rangers drew at least 1 million more fans last year than they had the 3 previous seasons).

And he couldn't get a buyer at the value he wanted, not to "recoup his losses" as you put it. He was asking $280 million for the Stars. I think the offers went to about $250 but he didn't bite.

And there's no way the arenas would be half filled. A quarter filled maybe on average. I could see half (at least) in the Canadian cities where the game is the product being sold, but places with notoriously hard line owners (Boston, Chicago who's had trouble drawing in general, Pitt) might not even draw a quarter.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Kritter471 said:
Hicks has been losing a lot of money since the real estate he invested in crashed in value after 9/11. His losses have had nothing to do with his hockey or baseball team and everthing to do with the bad economy. The Stars had been in the black every season until 2003-2004 (with a lower payroll than in 02/03 I believe - could be wrong there) and only lost $300,000 according to Forbes (I did the numbers $200,000 of those losses came from playing to 95% capacity in tickets, not including parking, concessions or suites).

And he is one of the more hard-line owners. But he's not one to make several bad business decisions in a row. His problem is that he overreacts one way or the other (witness: signed A-Rod, Chan Ho Park, Guerin and Turgeon to stupidly high contracts, now won't sign anyone, including home-grown prospects on the Rangers side. Made some really stupid comments in the paper that the Rangers "couldn't afford" to sign anyone big this off-season, and that if 3 million more fans came this year, they'd think about it. This is after the Rangers drew at least 1 million more fans last year than they had the 3 previous seasons).

And he couldn't get a buyer at the value he wanted, not to "recoup his losses" as you put it. He was asking $280 million for the Stars. I think the offers went to about $250 but he didn't bite.

And there's no way the arenas would be half filled. A quarter filled maybe on average. I could see half (at least) in the Canadian cities where the game is the product being sold, but places with notoriously hard line owners (Boston, Chicago who's had trouble drawing in general, Pitt) might not even draw a quarter.

His losses have been in the millions on the stars.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
shakes said:
I wonder why people still think this is about competitive balance. You think any owner gives a crap if Nashville or Columbus or whichever team can get to the Stanley Cup or compete on a fair playing ground? Not bloody likely.. the better a team is the more playoff dates they get. Lets put it this way.. if they could come up with a magical formula that earned everyone profits, but meant that certain teams would never be able to get to the finals, they would do it in a second.
I agree ..

Someone better tell us how Toronto's big market and spending and ZERO Stanley Cups in 38 years, and Philly's in 30 is somehow giving them an unfair competitive advantage on the ice in the battle for it. So lets Cap them, and tear them down because this type of success is just unacceptable in the NEW NHL ..
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Kritter471 said:
Where are you getting that information?

ill see if I can get you an exact figure or ballpark. Might take a day or 2 to hear back.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Pepper said:
I don't care how much owners make profit, they make the investments, they take all the risks so they are entitled to make profit.

Yes, a profit on their investment...not on a yearly basis. That is why a team's bottom line for a season doesn't mean much, their franchise value is what matters.

Pepper said:
I want to see 30 teams having about the same chance (financially that is) to build a good team, that means closer games which means more entertaining hockey.

Teams are still bound by 22 players per team and 54% of the Revenue they generate

Which is why revenue sharing is the real answer to the leagues problems. A cap means big markets spend 54% of revenues and small markets have to spend more than that to meet the floor. If you share revenues big markets spend less, even without a cap, and small markets don't have to spend a huge % of revenues to be competative. If your going to have a cap at $40 or $45 million, it doesn't do much good for the league when big markets make huge profits...so why not share that with the small markets so they are healthy as well?
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
The Messenger said:
Someone better tell us how Toronto's big market and spending and ZERO Stanley Cups in 38 years, and Philly's in 30 is somehow giving them an unfair competitive advantage on the ice in the battle for it.

If the media, the fans, and the general managers would look at that and realize it, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately they don't. Every fall Al Strachan gets on his horse and blasts the Leafs management for not signing every single free agent available. Don Cherry throws his bit in too. The fans calling into the radio shows are full of people saying the Leafs should get this and that player, and every single trade rumor involves them.

And so the Leafs are under pressure to spend money other teams don't have. Even though they could probably do as well if they didn't, since they position themselves as one of the "haves" of the league, they feel they are letting the fans down if they don't - or so they are accused of by the likes of Strachan even if they DON'T feel that way inside.

Couple that problem with the fact the teams that are winning with an average or worse lineup are generally doing it by choking the life out of the game. I think we can do without MORE of that.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Master Shake said:
ill see if I can get you an exact figure or ballpark. Might take a day or 2 to hear back.

I'd be very interested in seeing that. Because from what I know down here, Hicks losses have come with the Rangers (from 2000-2003) and with the real estate market crashing.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:

You do a great job of towing the NHL company line and spewing out the same Bettman defeatist attitude jargan.

Bull. It's you that's spewing jargon, and its all out of Bob Goodenow's sphincter. :shakehead


An optimist would find ways to build off the strong teams, promote the game and find ways to top up the weaker to decrease the disparity and preconceived $$$ advantage .. That would logically consist of taking money from profits of the better teams and give it to the weaker so they can add that key UFA to increase their chances, and product on the ice and grow the game.

An optomist would, would they? Maybe an optomist with zero right to be operating a business. An optomist would look at their marketplace and see that the revenues do not even come close to the expenditures of of a competitor and know that the "logical" adjustment would be draining off the revenues of the larger revenue generator and funnelling them to the smaller market, in essence propping up the one franchise through the efforts of another. Truely a "Canadian" solution where taking money and giving it to others is the way to go.

No, an optomist would look for common ground, be wise and examine the entire landscape and then implement a solution where a marketplace is developed where all franchises can compete on a level playing field and that all teams may move forward in an attempt to make profits on their own and grow their respective markets. Syphoning funds from one market to another market is no way for any business to operate. Only through implementation of a smart business model that allows for all offices to make money through the efforts of their own markets do you insure the health of your entire enterprise.

but NO lets go the Bettman way ..

A pessimist would simply throw in the towel, say there is absolutely no way my team can compete therefore the only option is to tear apart the strong so that in comparison my team does not look so bad and unequal .. That would logically be done by, cancelling a season, drying up the Revenue Stream and setting a Hard Cap to cater to the weakest teams, Not promote Revenue Sharing methods and simple giving LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE and NAIVE Fans the feeling that their team is better now in comparison..

No, a wise business man would see that the salary demands of employees were escalating much quicker than revenues could sustain and would put together a business plan to curb that accordingly. In regular business that would mean layoffs and an adjustment of the salary structure more in line with revenues. But of course to you that is being pessimistic. Thank god so many businesses are run by pessimists and manage to make the adjustments required to keep those operations afloat instead of the jackasses that think they can work through economic changes and drive their enterprises out of business.

Bettman's strategy ... Make Toronto play with Sundin and Belfour and 1/2 a team of AHL players so that Jordin Tootoo and Scottie Upshall look better in comparison when they play Nashville at home for fans.. Forgetting of course that big market teams have 41 regular season home games of which Nashville comes to town once each season, where even diehard fans usually give away their seats to those games ,and real fans flood to the Arena's to see Toronto verses Colorado or Detroit .. Star Power verses Star Power because logically fans want to see the best players possible compete for their entertainment value not the worst possible ones ..

What a load. The whole idea is to make teams responsible for their stupid signings. Toronto would have choices to make. Do they waste an assinine amount of money on a questionable quantity like Belfour, or do they pay him a more reasonable amunt of money that all the other teams in the league do not point to and laugh at? It's all about leveling the playing field and making the teams compete equally.

Star power is also a load of garbage. Fans have always flocked to see certain teams from large metropolitan areas. Even during the Ballard years when the Leafs were the laughing stock of the NHL the Leafs were still a fantastic draw. Its who you grew up cheering for and who you follow. That is where growning markets comes into play and building fan bases at the grassroots level. Without that effort and investment the small market teams do not have a chance to compete. This is why revenue sharing and transference of revenues for paying salaries is a complete joke. Its a treatment for the symptom, not for the disease itself. But that is PA midset. Drain as much cash out of the symptom and spend it on short term salarues rather than taking league revenues and creating an environment where all teams can compete and build grassroots support through development programs.


Next thing we are going to hear coming from Bettman is that 20 teams make the playoffs .. but the catch is its the bottom 20, so we can grow the game in the small markets and the top ones are too good and don't give the weak ones a real chance at the CUP .. Of course saying that with all the restraints the NHL is putting on the top teams via the CBA to bring them down, they should have a better then average chance to finish in the bottom in the future and compete they just have to emulate Nashville more in order to succeed in the new NHL ..

Now you're just being a fool and exagerating things. In other words you're spewing PA rhetoric that has no basis or foundation. Not surprised at really.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
I agree ..

Someone better tell us how Toronto's big market and spending and ZERO Stanley Cups in 38 years, and Philly's in 30 is somehow giving them an unfair competitive advantage on the ice in the battle for it. So lets Cap them, and tear them down because this type of success is just unacceptable in the NEW NHL ..

Just look at playoff berths in the past decade. Since almost every team is forced into a salary structure that does not payoff until playoff reveunes are generated the big payoff is in the post season. If you get to the post season you make money. If you don't you lose money. Those that spend a lot of money have a substantially better chance of getting to the post season where they can make some scratch.
 

CMUMike

Registered User
Feb 13, 2005
68
0
The Iconoclast said:
Now you're just being a fool and exagerating things. In other words you're spewing PA rhetoric that has no basis or foundation. Not surprised at really.
Don't give Mess too hard of a time...understand where he/she is coming from. The players are on the verge of totally giving in to Gary Bettman's wishes...despite the fact that they continually claimed that could never happen...and so did he/she...Gary is delivering on his promises to the owners...and was more than willing to take all the heat.

Also, this new system will prevent teams like Toronto, Colorado, Detroit from fielding fantasy teams...granted Toronto's teams have never won anything...at least not in my lifetime...and that's the team that he/she roots for...so just give Mess...a...break...

p.s. ... ... ...
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,189
St. OILbert, AB
The Messenger said:
There is an easy solution for Bettman ... Each team individually can only spend a max of 54% of its OWN EARNED REVENUES .. 30 Different Hard Cap ceilings, each based on team and market and performance.

Advantage :

Each team would be profitable, thus the league as a whole would be healthy and it would be great incentive for teams to be creative and raise more league Revenue if **Their ** OWN TEAM CAP is based on **Their** own abilities to run a profitable business, and are not tied together with the same rope that is firmly attached to the Titanic on the other end, much like Mountain climbers so that when one goes they all go.


The Oilers have done that. A lot of good that has done.
Yet Toronto can pick up a Leetch and Detroit can pick up a Lang without even blinking for a playoff run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->