Crush the NHLPA like a grape

Status
Not open for further replies.

WhalerBoy

Registered User
Jul 22, 2003
213
0
Toronto
Visit site
Drake1588 said:
The difference is that his team isn't going anywhere and will be on its way up again... whalerboy. I wouldn't be so quick to knock Chicago.

The fact is that there is pain for ownership the longer that the lockout persists, and that the pressure on the NHL to get a deal done is a good bit more intense than they would have the fans believe.

didn't mean to knock Chicago, I actually like them. but you gotta admit, taking out some nice prospects like Ruttuu and Arnason,Bell.....leaves an AHL calibre team. This isnt a "my team is better than yours thing", its just a statement of fact about the current talent pool in Chicago, and the NHL too to some degree.

(not sure if you did, but dont take it so seriously. Its just a hockey team)

as for your second point, your right, there is a lot of pain for the NHL owners. In fact, Im still betting on them caving this week and taking a luxury tax/soft cap. BUT, if I were them, and I truly believed that long term the hard cap with linkage would help, I would go ahead and call off the year. AND, I would also REALLY work on improving the game itself, because rushing back to play 28games seems like a recipe for even more boring clutch and grab hockey.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
ArtG said:
I guess that makes 80% of Canadians idiots... :banghead:

"everyone's crazy except me! I'm the only normal one!"

Actually I suggest you read the National ,Post from Thursday according to them only 20% of Canadians now support the owners. Funny player support has stayed steady at 15%
 

kurt

the last emperor
Sep 11, 2004
8,709
52
Victoria
Adam Smith's invisible hand

Mountain Dude said:
I say they just cancel this season and next season right now, and don't even bother going back to the bargaining table, when the players are ready to take the deal that has just been offered, they can come crawling back.

Whoa, I thought these forums were for hockey fans. You want 2 seasons thrown under the bus, in support of the owners? That's a wonderful attitude.


WhalerBoy said:
I agee with the sentiment of crushing the union. I think the time has come for pro sports owners to accept some short term pain in exchange for long term gain. This has gotten way too ridiculous. I can accept a guy making 10mill a year, if he brings in that money. But when Joe average, Mr.3rd liner/8th man in basketball, bench player in baseball makes over 2 million a year, and most fans dont know him by name, its gone too far.

Guess what, that's exactly what this lockout is all about. If owners are really losing as much money as they say they are, they will be in absolutely no rush to get a deal done. If the owners recognize that the sacrifice is not worth the potential payoff, as they could be making money with NHL hockey, then they'll make a deal. That's what a strike/lockout is.

Same goes for the players. If a replacement league (whether it's elite hockey in Europe, or a new North American league rising from the ashes of a lost NHL season) allows them to make money elsewhere, and they truly feel that owners will cave, they'll wait for it to happen. If they think it's best to take the NHL's offer now, as it's more worthwhile than sitting out a year or more, they'll do so.

WhalerBoy said:
And yes, there may be a lot of PA hating going on? Ever stop to ask yourself why, instead of ridiculing the person who says it?

A lot of the stuff on this site is from uninformed fans that care about their small market club having a hope for a cup. However, everyone has a voice, and they're free to spout all they want. And, as mudcrutch79 said, the majority of the population, and the majority of hockey fans, do not have much knowledge about big business or collective bargaining. They have a less informed perception of players "whining" about how they're not making enough money, or of how if they were in the players' shoes they'd love to play for anything ownership would offer. There's no denying it. I'm not trying to be insulting or condescending, but these are extremely common fan responses to the situation.

Another dynamic in public opinion that hasn't really been commented on, is that the majority of hockey fans are Canadians. That means, the majority of hockey fans support smaller market (for the most part) Canadian clubs, that have a tougher time competing against bigger payrolls such as those of the Stars, Red Wings, Rangers, and Avalanche. However, I must comment that this is the most elite level of professional hockey. As much as it pains me to say it, perhaps some of these smaller-market franchises have no business in the NHL. If they can't shoulder the costs, and can't bring in the needed revenues, the writing is on the wall. However, again, this is where the strike/lockout process comes into play. Bettman has obviously taken a hard-line stance that favours the smaller market clubs. But if the majority of the larger markets are prepared to be flexible in order to start operating again, a deal will get hammered out, and the smaller markets may be left behind.

I know it's much easier said than done, but this thing will work itself out.
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
mudcrutch79 said:
It may well. It's probably the same bunch of idiots who are constantly spouting anti-American nonsense. Just because the majority support something doesn't mean they're correct.

Well let me ask you this than, if the salary cap isn't the ONLY option as you say, it is an option, so why don't the players just take it? They're still going to get rich.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
mudcrutch79 said:
It may well. It's probably the same bunch of idiots who are constantly spouting anti-American nonsense. Just because the majority support something doesn't mean they're correct.
You are right, the majority does not mean being correct. I'm not pro player. Not happy with the owners but really feel the players are being led down a slippery slope. Hoping something sensible can be done in a sport that needs to be itself not part of the " big four" or other nonsense. If it never gains another fan who cares?; lets enjoy it for what it is and distribute the still sizeable revenue that exists in a manner that is fair to both.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
mudcrutch79 said:
I have, believe it or not, and I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of those hating on the PA for this situation are idiots. I'd be really interested to see the average age/education level for people who are hardcore owner supporters vs. those who are more moderate/leaning PA. Too many people hear $270MM in losses, throw in the fact that their favourite team doesn't have a couple of Cups in the past 10 years, and they think tickets are too expensive, and come to the conclusion that the owners are absolutely right. It's insane.

There are solutions out there that don't involve a salary cap. The fact that Bettman has chosen not to pursue them tells me he's going after a big increase in franchise values. Fine, that's his and the owners choice, but don't expect me to support them while they seek it, and don't lie and say that it's about competitive balance.

I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of those that are hard-core supporters of one side or the other are, for all intents and purposes, delusional.

There are two sides here. Pretty much impossible to show any objectivity and provide meaningful discourse when you only look at one side of the equation. It's never, ever, as black and white as quite a few make it out to be. But that's the way many view it unfortunately. And we keep getting the same thing that's been going on here for months; people arguing their preferences and their biases instead of trying to be at least somewhat objective and look at an issue from both sides of the fence.

I couldn't give a rat's tail who ends up coming out on top in this, if one side somehow manages to at all right now. I'm only hoping for a healthy NHL, no matter how it comes about. If that ends up in me supporting one side more than the other, so be it. But I'll continue to listen to what both sides have to say, balancing my opinions only in terms what is best for the future of the NHL. No more, no less.

I actually think some productive debates could be had if the majority of those who post on the business board tried their best to be objective. But I'm not naive enough to believe that's gonna happen around here, way too much evidence to the contrary. A few meaningful threads sure, but a lot more simply filled with attacks and insults. Too bad really.
 

Johnnybegood13

Registered User
Jul 11, 2003
8,711
968
The words to the NHLPA from Stephen (DAVID O'HARA in BRAVEHEART)

"God says i can get out of this mess but i'm pretty sure your foooked"

All time greatest lines fits again, because if they don't accept "cost certainty" in the next few days they are foooked!
 

leaflover

Stanley Cup 2022
Mar 3, 2002
15,239
2
beautiful B.C
Visit site
cw7 said:
I'm only hoping for a healthy NHL, no matter how it comes about.
The eventual end to the lockout will hopefully be the first of the many steps needed to get the NHL to the level of healthy.The league is a mess and it just keeps getting worse.Serious changes are needed in many areas.
 

Kestrel

Registered User
Jan 30, 2005
5,814
129
mudcrutch79 said:
I have, believe it or not, and I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of those hating on the PA for this situation are idiots. I'd be really interested to see the average age/education level for people who are hardcore owner supporters vs. those who are more moderate/leaning PA. Too many people hear $270MM in losses, throw in the fact that their favourite team doesn't have a couple of Cups in the past 10 years, and they think tickets are too expensive, and come to the conclusion that the owners are absolutely right. It's insane.

After having read a lot of your posts, I would have expected more from you than to make a generalization like this. I know I'm coming out of nowhere as a new poster, but all the same, I'm calling you down for the generalization. I think you'd probably be tempted to do the same to someone calling down hardcore pro-player advocates in the same way.

I don't think my age and education are particularly relevant, but since you asked, I am 25 and am A+, Net+, NANS, and NSNS certified, finished college, and am currently enrolled at the University of Lethbridge studying psychology and neuroscience. I don't know if I fit what you would call a hardcore advocate for the ownders or not - I feel I'm moderate in that I have an open mind and can think clearly, but on the other hand, you may call me hardcore because I support the owners during this particular round of CBA negotiations.

As for whether or not the owners are right - I've seen you comment on Cal Nichols and the Edmonton Oilers, so we'll use them as an example. Obviously anything taken from either side needs to be taken with a grain of salt, so I won't quote any numbers. On the other hand, a loss is a loss, whether it is as high as claimed or not. I know you question that the Oilers are actually losing money since they seem willing to accept a CBA that would not include revenue sharing amongst the teams. It has been suggested to you that they are counting on increased competitiveness and thus revenue in a more equalized environment, and I BELIEVE I have seen you say you don't believe there's a strong correlation between competitiveness and revenue (if it wasn't you, I apologize, but it still fits the purpose of this post regardless).

I would be strongly critical of any claim that there isn't much correlation between success on the ice and success in the bank book. If that REALLY was the case, you would see the more business savvy teams consistently fielding low budget teams, not because they were low on cash, but because they were more profitable than winning teams. As a result, you would NOT see overly inflated salaries. Smytty never would get his $4.5 million salary because it would be much more profitable to have a PR player a la Laraque take his place for a cool million a year. Because of this, you would see high contract players being waived left right and centre. Demand for these elite players would be down, and powerhouse teams like Detroit and Colorado could grab these high performing players up for much less money.

The fact that there IS demand, a LOT of demand, for these elite players strongly suggests to me that winning equals money. There may be some idiot owners and GM's in the league, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that all 30 teams suffer from this lack of intelligence.

mudcrutch79 said:
There are solutions out there that don't involve a salary cap. The fact that Bettman has chosen not to pursue them tells me he's going after a big increase in franchise values. Fine, that's his and the owners choice, but don't expect me to support them while they seek it, and don't lie and say that it's about competitive balance.

I believe I've already partially addressed this in the earlier portion of my post, but I'll hit it some more. Yes, it IS about competitive balance. That's a lot of nerve to assume that I'm lying simply because I say it. Is it as cut and dry and simple as competitive balance? No. Competitive balance means increased money for teams that were on the low end previously. It means added insurance for the teams that are elite today, but due to unforeseen circumstances could be on the shallow end of the pool tomorrow. The latter has happened a lot throughout sports history, and will continue to happen. In the meantime, a cap DOES also mean savings for a number of teams. A team that previously budgeted $50 million to compete with a $60 or $70 million payroll now finds that it's financially EQUAL to the top tiered teams at $10 million in savings.

As for Bettman trying to increase franchise values? It shouldn't really need to be said. But... apparently it does anyway. NHL is a business, through and through. Bettman and the owners will ALWAYS be trying to increase franchise values. Any player who wishes to interfere with this ability is being ridiculous and unreasonable. Yes, a player has a right to profit from his efforts at the same time, the owners' profit shouldn't be in exclusion of fair salary for the players, but neither should player profit be in exclusion of ownership profit. If the only way you would support the owners is if they were NOT seeking the increased value of their franchises (I'm not saying it is, I'm saying IF), then I would have to say that you were yourself being unreasonable also.

Now that the long post is out of the way - I DO respect your ability to think, or else I wouldn't have wasted so much space on one of my first posts on the board - so take it as some food for thought.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
leaflover said:
The eventual end to the lockout will hopefully be the first of the many steps needed to get the NHL to the level of healthy.The league is a mess and it just keeps getting worse.Serious changes are needed in many areas.

Agreed.

I guess that I should have said "relatively" healthy, given the current state of the league. As long as the steps taken continually help the NHL to become more viable (financially as well as on the ice), I'm all for it. Some of them can be leaps, but most will have to be baby steps. I have no problem with that if it's progressing towards something better.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
cw7 said:
I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of those that are hard-core supporters of one side or the other are, for all intents and purposes, delusional.

There are two sides here. Pretty much impossible to show any objectivity and provide meaningful discourse when you only look at one side of the equation. It's never, ever, as black and white as quite a few make it out to be. But that's the way many view it unfortunately. And we keep getting the same thing that's been going on here for months; people arguing their preferences and their biases instead of trying to be at least somewhat objective and look at an issue from both sides of the fence.

I couldn't give a rat's tail who ends up coming out on top in this, if one side somehow manages to at all right now. I'm only hoping for a healthy NHL, no matter how it comes about. If that ends up in me supporting one side more than the other, so be it. But I'll continue to listen to what both sides have to say, balancing my opinions only in terms what is best for the future of the NHL. No more, no less.

I actually think some productive debates could be had if the majority of those who post on the business board tried their best to be objective. But I'm not naive enough to believe that's gonna happen around here, way too much evidence to the contrary. A few meaningful threads sure, but a lot more simply filled with attacks and insults. Too bad really.

excellent post. posts like this make reading the forums worthwhile.

thank you

:handclap:
 

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,083
2,432
Northern Virginia
WhalerBoy said:
didn't mean to knock Chicago, I actually like them. but you gotta admit, taking out some nice prospects like Ruttuu and Arnason,Bell.....leaves an AHL calibre team. This isnt a "my team is better than yours thing", its just a statement of fact about the current talent pool in Chicago, and the NHL too to some degree.

(not sure if you did, but dont take it so seriously. Its just a hockey team)

as for your second point, your right, there is a lot of pain for the NHL owners. In fact, Im still betting on them caving this week and taking a luxury tax/soft cap. BUT, if I were them, and I truly believed that long term the hard cap with linkage would help, I would go ahead and call off the year. AND, I would also REALLY work on improving the game itself, because rushing back to play 28games seems like a recipe for even more boring clutch and grab hockey.
Sorry for the late reply; went to sleep last night.

Nah, I wasn't taking it too seriously. No worries. On the other point, I was just trying to make the point in general. You seem grounded, but there are some who seem to believe the owners are capable of waiting indefinitely, and I'd take issue with that. The players are certainly feeling the pinch and are letting their PA leadership hear about it, but I suspect the clamor to get a deal done is not much less on the ownership side. There is heat being felt by the NHL head office as well.

Personally, despite media reports I still think a partial season is possible. I don't know that either side needs to cave to achieve it, necessarily, but tangible concessions made on both sides are still conceivable.

Rhetoric aside, both sides are aware they risk killing the golden goose if this goes too long, and everyone seems to acknowledge that failure to get a deal done now means no hockey until at least January 2006, in the absence of any real urgency in the interim. That gives both sides reason to work at it now.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Drake1588 said:
Rhetoric aside, both sides are aware they risk killing the golden goose if this goes too long

This is where I think you (and Bob Goodenow) are wrong. The is no "golden goose" in owning an NHL franchise in 2004. There are only golden eggs laid at the owners expense for the players benefit. Unless you think owners are just insane and secretely raking in billions of dollars in profit from this floundering league on the brink of total obscurity, then cancelling this season should leave no doubt that the system is flat out broken and the league can't survive under it for much longer.

Call me crazy (wait, that *is* my name) but I see no reason not to believe owners when they say NHL teams are money pits. The NHL is a dying patient, and no, heart surgery isn't fun or desirable, but it may be necessary. People don't have heart surgery for the fun of it and the NHL isn't trashing an entire year for fun or to squeeze out some pennies from the NHLPA, its doing it because its absolutely necessary to survive. So far, the NHLPA has offered this dying patient an aspirin and that just isn't good enough.
 

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,083
2,432
Northern Virginia
Then this is something on which we fully disagree.

The teams want to play this year, and there are teams that will fold if the NHL does not play hockey for another calendar year from now. The union is certainly going to give up certain concessions to get a deal done, but I think you will find those concessions are less than you expected, in the end. We'll see.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Drake1588 said:
Then this is something on which we fully disagree.

The teams want to play this year, and there are teams that will fold if the NHL does not play hockey for another calendar year from now. The union is certainly going to give up certain concessions to get a deal done, but I think you will find those concessions are less than you expected, in the end. We'll see.

There is no disagreement at all from me on that point. I don't expect the union to give up an inch. This is what is most sickening and disgusting about this union. Too many teams bleed red ink and untill the NHLPA realises that nobody cares about hockey and that hockey players can't keep earning 12 million dollars a year, then we will have the NHL back.
 

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,083
2,432
Northern Virginia
It's the assumption that the owners will be willing to tough it out indefinitely in order to crush the union that I take issue with, basically. I would contend that they can't afford to do that, if not in terms of their bottom line then in terms of the damage they are doing to their fan base, to the league's fan base.

In my opinion, if the players agree to a $50M cap with a luxury tax that sets in around $40M, you have the core of a deal that the NHL will accept -- even though it does not solve all the league's problems, even though it does not create parity, and even though you would still have franchises with payroll around $30M (and that is after the league's promised revenue sharing is handed out).

I expect to see continued disparity, just with some restrictions established in terms of how high salaries can climb, plus a more owner-friendly arbitration system and stricter caps on entry-level salaries.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
mudcrutch79 said:
I have, believe it or not, and I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of those hating on the PA for this situation are idiots. I'd be really interested to see the average age/education level for people who are hardcore owner supporters vs. those who are more moderate/leaning PA. Too many people hear $270MM in losses, throw in the fact that their favourite team doesn't have a couple of Cups in the past 10 years, and they think tickets are too expensive, and come to the conclusion that the owners are absolutely right. It's insane.

There are solutions out there that don't involve a salary cap. The fact that Bettman has chosen not to pursue them tells me he's going after a big increase in franchise values. Fine, that's his and the owners choice, but don't expect me to support them while they seek it, and don't lie and say that it's about competitive balance.


It's not because they are idiots, it's because they are envious. It's easy to say ''IF I was one of those players, I would be happy 1.3M$ instead of 1,8M$'' when you're making 30,000$ and that they're so passionnate about hockey.

People also don't see the owners as billionnaires , they see them as people who LOST MONEY & people who brings them the entertainment they want. ADD to that , the ''fake'' reasons of this lockout.

1- We want to fix the game to have 30 competitive franchise but we do not want to share our revenue with the weak franchise except the playoff money which will help them only they bring a sufficient average in the arena.

2- We want to be partners with the players but we do not have any intention to be partners between each other (owners).

& I can go on & on & on.

now for you here's my favorite song when I think of the owners from Simple plan ''Shut up , shut up , shut up, shut up.....''
 

darth5

No!
Mar 28, 2002
2,584
74
Smashville, TN
Mighty Duck said:
I agree, fire all the players and bring in the scabs. The American public wouldn't know the difference, just call it the NHL, and they would believe they are the best in the world, just like the NBA. With that huge paper bag over there heads, they would never know, it is the American way. If it walks like a duck, it must be a duck!
I fail to understand why this kind of blatant intolerance is allowed here. Everyone's upset with the lockout situaiton. But I refuse to be called out in such a stupid fashion.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
tnrocketman said:
I fail to understand why this kind of blatant intolerance is allowed here. Everyone's upset with the lockout situaiton. But I refuse to be called out in such a stupid fashion.

You're totally right, people sees TV ratings as a way to think the Americans does not like hockey.

Everyone know that hockey is very specific to certain area of the country & if they stop looking if some people are watching NHL on ESPN in the Delaware, we would have better ratings but personnaly I don't care about ratings.

Just go to Boston where hockey is maybe not as much as the Red Sox or Patriots but there's a lot of passionnate fans.

Also I don't like the intolerance towards Nashville & Atlanta & the other ''expansion teams'' like they have to proove right away hockey is in their blood.

I don't think St-Louis was a hockey town when they got in the NHL in 1967 but it grows &people liked it. We can't judge a city in 3-5 years to know if hockey will succeed or not. Let a generation go (25 years) so that a father who liked hockey bring his child to games who will bring friends & hockey will be a part of their life.

At least that's what I think.
 

Mighty Duck

Registered User
Jul 6, 2003
334
0
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
It cannot be done. There is that funny thing called law that keeps getting in the way. How do you propose for the owners to do this?

I can see no way the NHL owners are in a position to use replacement players given:
- the US case law on bargaining impasse,
- lack of a substantive detailed offer to date from the owners which is required as it must be implemented as a CBA,
-differing jurisdictions and labour laws (US federal and 4 different Canadian provinces - no impasse procedure in Canada)
- the substantial financial penalties (and anti-trust suits) the owners would face if the NLRB does not accept the declaration of impasse
-the bar to any foreign players as replacements in Canada and the US under the respective immigration laws.

Wetcoaster, I was just being sarcastic to the Crazy Lunatic in my reply, as I agree with you 100%, no kidding. If Bettman and his clowns think it will be a cake walk to impasse (if that is there plan), he is headed for a war no one will win. Maybe he has other motives, as maybe the NBA has hired him to crush the NHL into oblivion. More revenue for the NBA.
 

Mighty Duck

Registered User
Jul 6, 2003
334
0
Visit site
tnrocketman said:
I fail to understand why this kind of blatant intolerance is allowed here. Everyone's upset with the lockout situaiton. But I refuse to be called out in such a stupid fashion.


Lighten up buddy, as my reply was just as silly as the original post; and other posts regarding this lock out. But, as a Canadian, I do get some what annoyed at my American friends who seem to think they have the market cornered as far as sports is concerned. I suggest we all take the paper bag off our head, accept the fact there are labor disputes in our world, whether it be the manufacturing, services or entertainment industries. Some get resolved right away, others take months, and some never get resolved, resulting in closing the doors. That is what we call the American way, Free enterprise, is what our fathers died for, and to say we must dictate to the players what they should do or shouldn't do; would make my uncle roll over in his grave, as he died in the 2nd World war, fighting for freedom. Over the years I have seen several labor disputes, some of which have affected me directly, but I hold no grudge, as it is our way of life. We have a choice, thank God! What is the worst that could happen if the NHL didn't settle, the NHL might shut down. Now, that would bring the world crashing to its knees. I don't think so, we should be thankful that we can be free to go home every day to our families, and free to speak our own mind. Let the NHL and the NHLPA sort out their own problem, and if they do, then we can decide if we want to participate as fans again. It's a free world, even in the entertainment world. I have heard all the quotes; "that guy shouldn't get paid that much"; from the Garbage Man (Waste Technician) to the President (I never had sex with that woman)(Prime Minister in Canada)

The bottom line here is, as we criticize the very players we pay a $100 a game to go and cheer for, yet we complain they make to much money. Let’s be fair, as most people in the entertainment industry probably get paid too much, but we are the ones who set the market, supply and demand. Everyone is great at pointing fingers, but who created this mess. If you go out and over spend your credit card, and the bank gives you a second chance by giving you a loan to pay them off, will you be responsible or rack them up again.
1) Why should the NHLPA be held responsible for the NHL club to follow a budget?
2) Why should a player be tied to one team until he is 31 years old.

The only thing the CBA does is protect the owners from doing things which would be illegal in most industries and countries. [USA (Anti-Trust)& Canada (Competition Act)] We can be as mad as we want, but I can see this headed to the courts, and when the dust clears, nothing will be left. WHO CARES!
 
Last edited:

Ar-too

Zealous Scrub
Jan 8, 2004
11,108
15
Columbus, OH
This thread needs some more cliches.

I really appreciate the posters here. They give it 110 %. I mean, these are guys who show up and will really out-work you. They leave it all out there on the field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->