Can I Get Paid for what Strachan Does?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Bauer83, Mar 16, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bauer83

    Bauer83 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/03/16/962735.html

    "The most obvious reason is that a majority of owners realize they could have made money under the Dec. 9 proposal from the players, the one that offered a 24% salary rollback and other significant concessions. "

    Does anyone else hate reading his columns. This is sad, cause day after day I read them like watching a train wreck on TV, horrible but can't turn away. He uses the same false statement over and over again, and no matter how many times he is proven wrong by the owners actions, he continues to make it. It is guaranteed that 5-6 owners might be pissed off, even 1/3 at the most might have wanted the 42.5, but no way in hell did the majority of owners want that deal. If they did, then it would have been put to a vote, and we would have heard that 8 shot it down. That was not the case, plain and simple.

    "Once again, it's the wealthier teams that are providing much of the impetus. After all, it's no accident that financial success and good drafting go hand-in-hand. "

    And he is not talking about the awesome draft record of the leafs is he? Sure detroit has hit home runs with zetterburg, datsyuk, and a few others. But there failures in the draft are easily hidden, as they can afford to by spare parts. It is not good drafting that brings team to the top, its good drafting and the ability to continue to develop those players. But anyways, back to my point.

    I want a job that allows me to write the same article once a week, rephrase the odd paragraph and get paid to do it. Anyone else looking for that type of job?
     
  2. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC

    Because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's wrong. Quite a few could have made money under Dec 9 if they had some DECENT type of revenue sharing. Pro-owner guys must realize that a dozen teams would work under dec 9 and ALL would have worked under $49M hard cap. None of that magnet crap Bettman speaks of can be true. If league revenues are going to decline as Gary says, why would he offer 42.5 if he really believed it would act as a magnet? If it acted as a magnet and the league average was $40M let's say, that would be $1.2B. If the league is expecting a decline in revenues, we're back to square 1 with the players taking around 75%. It's just straight up bettman rhetoric again.

    Owners have been out to cancel this entire season for years. They planned there agenda around that fact. They knew that cancelling this season would mean they get there hard cap number lowered because of the "pie" theory you all love.

    IMO, a deal will be done by October because you will slowly see the owners start to crack. They need this season more then the players do. They have fought for a hard cap and have won. Gary needs to negotiate the fairest cap deal now. Labor strifes in sports are usually based on one ideaology against another. In this case it was hard cap vs lux tax. The players have conceeded to a hard cap. It is now Gary's turn to conceed something. Or maybe, if we're lucky, he'll negotiate the number and revenue sharing
     
  3. Bauer83

    Bauer83 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    You mean a thing called business reality? The fact that losing a year will cause revenues to go down? Must be a conspiracy theory, has to be.
     
  4. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    I'm not refuting the fact that revenues will decline. My point is that the owners realized that by cancelling an entire season they can convince the whole planet of this basic economic theory (courts more importantly) and get closer to the number they want in the 30's. They didn't get EXACTLY what they want yet--linkage or a hard cap in the 30's--so they cancel the season in attempts to achieve that because they can now claim they "need" it.
     
  5. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're not qualified for the job unless you agree to have a lobotomy.
     
  6. chiavsfan

    chiavsfan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    4,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Radio News Director
    Location:
    Chicagoland, IL
    Home Page:
    This is NOT true...the players DID concede a hard cap...now that the season has been cancelled, all deals are off the table.
     
  7. Bauer83

    Bauer83 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Okay misunderstood your point. And I agree with you they cancelled the season as the did not get what they want, but to me they did no get what they needed for ALL 30 teams. Now whether or not you care about having all 30 teams is your opinion, and its fair to say contraction should be an option. But I believe if they plan on 30 teams, then linkage is necessary. The Rangers and Leafs do not want to share revenues, which is there call to make, so there really is no other option. The part that bugs me here is they really blame all the small market teams for holding this thing back, when its all the teams. The small market teams would love a cap of 40-50 million dollars if they had revenue sharing that guaranteed them that money. It would not hurt them at all, but the big teams do not want to spend this money on other teams which is fair, and the majority (sorry its the reality) of the owners don't want a soft cap at 49.5. The magnet theory is true, but not how everyone here understands it. I have brought up this point before, and most people will agree that what Bettman did end up explaining was that the 49.5 million cap won't cause every team to be at 49.5. But will cause an increase in salaries related to similar players. Example if a couple of 49.5 million dollar teams pay x player x amount, then y player will want y amount from teams that can come nowhere close to that. So because of salary arbitration and such, these players will get close to that value as long as the contract was within reason, therefore bringing most teams salary up a directly proportional amount. That is the magnet theory as it should be explained.
     
  8. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well the PA can take it off the table if they wanted to but do you really think they're ever going to get a deal without a hard cap at this point? Seems like a 0% chance if you ask me. It would save a lot of time and money for the PA to leave it on the table, that's where the negotiations are going to end up anyway.
     
  9. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC

    I was talking about a HARD cap at $49M. I understand the process by which it COULD act as a magnet, but my point is that there is no way he really believes that. It can be proven by his $42.5 offer. If he really believed the magnet theory, he wouldn't settle for anything more then mid 30's. Otherwise with his declining revenues statement (saying it revs could possible go to $1B), it makes zero sense to offer a $42.5M if he thinks it's going to act as a magnet and all teams will soon be up to it like the NFL is.

    He contradicts himself when he offers that number and at the same time says that caps act as magnets
     
  10. Bauer83

    Bauer83 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    No he does not. Because he has calculated that at 42.5 million, the average salary would be in a range that is fitting to them. The offer was there for the players to take some kind of non-linkage number. Most teams could afford a mid 30's number, but the difference is that would not be for bottom end talent. And that is problem number 2. They also offered revenue sharing of playoff money, so that they could help out the struggling franchises. This was a compromise offer that was not going to help the league short term, but Bettman is still optimistic he is going to turn the game around. This is an offer that protects the league short term, allows mid range teams to get high end players due to cap room, and will hopefully allow the game to grow for the bottom few teams. There was no salary floor in that offer, so teams still had the option of underspending.
     
  11. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC

    His explanation in the transcripts being sent back and forth the night before the season being canceled is what im talking about. Was ridiculously weak and obviously wasn't planned out like the rest of the owners campaign has been. The courts will notice what I just pointed out. His words were very flawed in that letter to Goodenow and Goodenow nailed it and responded back. This hurts the NHL's case in court. Just get a deal already, YOU HAVE WON GARY!
     
  12. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Lol!!!!!

    The most inane arguement I've ever heard!

    These guys are business owners.... if they were going to make money, they would have signed the deal!

    Duh.
     
  13. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A deal is never off the table. Once its on the table its there to stay. They may say its off the table just like the owners say linkage is back in, but bottom line is if the owners walked in and said they would take the 49.5 cap with the 24% rollback, the players would take. And if the players walked in and said they would take the 42.5M "final offer" salary cap, the owners would take it.

    Its kind of like in a courtroom when the judge says "the jury will disregard that last statement". They might not admit it, but they use that is determining guilt or innocent.
     
  14. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    if the nhl is serious about the health of all 30 teams, then they would implement meaningful revenue sharing amongst the teams.

    the owners are too greedy to share among themselves. the players have already offered alot of concessions, now it's time for the Rangers, Flyers, Leafs etc. to step up and share revenues in the league's best interest.

    unfortunately it will never happen because the owners are too greedy, something that seems to often be overlooked here.
     
  15. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    I would be interested on what the moron feels is a reasonable rate of return on the investment. Does by "a majority of owners realize they could have made money under the Dec. 9 proposal from the players, the one that offered a 24% salary rollback and other significant concessions. " he mean that 16 owners could have made a return of 1% of the value of their investment whille the other 14 lose hundreds of millions?
    The guys a moron & does a diservice to his masters, the NHLPA.
     
  16. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    wow, i didn't know the definition of "moron" had been changed to: a person who presents a lucid argument, although differing in position and/or opinion from one's own views

    thanks for the english lesson !

    :shakehead
     
  17. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They won't sign a deal unless all 30 teams are going to make money. He never said all 30 teams would make money with the Dec 9th proposal, he said some would. Problem is, for the small markets to make money under it there needs to be revenue sharing, something the big markets don't want.
     
  18. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    86
    The league

    already said they would revenue share....

    Thats what a minimum payroll means.

    Put it to you like this... I'm Toronto, if we play under X contract I make 80million dollars.

    But the rest of the league losses 50 Million.

    Well, were still up 30 million.... lets play!

    One problem, owner y knows this so signs 20mill more payroll, cause TO's gonna pay!

    How do you resolve problem? But the onus on the chap that is actually getting the money(eg the players!).

    But wait, thats what the NHL has been trying to do all along? But for some reason THE PLAYERS want to lose illions....
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2005
  19. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    No, a moron is one who lets his biases get in the way of presenting columns and facts in anything but an honest fashion.
    Al wecomes you to his club
     
  20. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    Duh nothing. I'll ask you a question. If you were a business owner, wouldn't you sit out an extra 1/2 season in order to achieve more successful profits over the next 6?

    And I only said some teams, not all.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2005
  21. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    well then, i guess you meet the definition.

    good work !!!

    :handclap: :handclap:
     
  22. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    86
    pissing off

    Your customers is rarely a good solution.

    BTW, good of you to ignore the further post.

    Also, I didnt realize only some teams should make money rather then all teams?

    Generally when you run a business, you shoot for making profits not 6/30 profits and 24/30 losses.
     
  23. Timmy

    Timmy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    10,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awards:
    The profitable teams don't want to sit out.

    The teams losing money do.

    The teams losing money, by sheer numbers, are running the show.

    The teams are going to write off as many "normal" seasons as it takes to stop losing money.

    The teams have a right to tell anyone (including fans, players, and agents) that tells the owners they must continue to lose money for the good of the game, to **** right off.

    The teams are not going to commit financial suicide by signing another 95 deal that can be worked, cajoled, manipulated, and rendered inoperable by intelligent agents who are doing their job properly.
     
  24. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    Hey :dunce: , please explain to me what columns or facts I have presented in anything but an honest fashion.
    What a :dunce:
     
  25. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"