Crush the NHLPA like a grape

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
gc2005 said:
You run in to some level of uncertainty when you budget for absolutely any company. Otherwise it wouldn't be called budgeting, it would be reading the future.

For hockey teams, you would have to look at different possible scenarios -- make the playoffs, don't make the playoffs, make the finals, etc. Use probabilities or pick the most likely scenario (i.e. Leafs -- make playoffs, win one round) and be aware of the risks if you don't do as well as you thought. Also leave room in your budget to cover a reasonable amount of injuries, and acquisitions during the year, if need be.

Budgeting is not a smokescreen. It can be done. Not an exact science, but still, you should be able to create a budget and stick to it. If you still lose money that way, your first worry should be why your team didn't do as well as you thought it would.

Nowhere near the amount of uncertainty as in sports. That's the problem.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,999
2,075
Duncan
Thunderstruck said:
The "just stick to a budget" stance has been repudiated so many times it isn't even worth the response. PA apologists love to ignore the inflationary effect of market disparity and the fact that linkage is in reality the NHL's attempt at setting a league wide budget and then "just sticking to that budget".

Of course the apologists will come back with "revenue sharing" to eliminate the disparity, but shockingly never call for 100% "salary sharing" to make sure each player gets an equal share.

Funny how they are willing to take the top earning owners money and give it to the disadvantaged owners, yet aren't willing to take the top earning players money and give it to the disadvantaged players.

The NHL is willing to give a fair % of the overall reveues to the PA. How they get the money to the PA is their business, as it is also the PA's business how they distribute that share amoungst the members.

Revenue sharing is nothing more than an attempt to increase the PA's share of the revenue pie.

Yup... well said.
 

Poignant Discussion*

I tell it like it is
Jul 18, 2003
8,421
5
Gatineau, QC
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.

I'll be honest. I believe anyone taking a side in this mess period is ignorant and selfish and does not know the first thing in collective bargaining.

Billionaires vs Millionaires in a game of chicken.

Lets look at a little history

http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/archive/silver1.htm

Very telling quote about one of the hardliners

"When some players finally hired Ed Garvey, former head of the National Football League Players' Association, to investigate Eagleson's work as union head, Garvey produced a 1989 report which revealed that "The conflicts of interest are shocking, but even more shocking is a pattern of sweetheart agreements with the NHL over all these years...." Garvey was appalled by Eagleson's close, personal ties to Bill Wirtz, owner of the Chicago Black Hawks and Chairman of the NHL Board of Governors, on whose Florida-based yacht Eagleson enjoyed cavorting, and John Zeigler, President of the NHL, and suggested that the Eagleson-Wirtz-Zeigler relationship made bargaining a "charade"."


So Mr. Wirtz who is now a hardliner fighting the players was in bed with the old head of the NHLPA. And you WONDER why the players don't trust the owners?

I'm gonna quit coming to this board because the ignorance of most of the "writers" is sickening. See some of you in the other sections
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Greschner4 said:
Nowhere near the amount of uncertainty as in sports. That's the problem.

Not true. Smart people should be able to reasonably predict as to whether or not their team should make the playoffs, and if it has a chance to go far. It's all about calculated risks from that point. Montreal picked up Kovalev, spent $1 million or so on him, but he got them into the second round and probably an extra 3 home playoff games, so the risk paid off.

There is a whole world of uncertainty for non-sports businesses, the most glaring example would be budgets for a company whose sales are completely dependent on the weather. They still manage to come up with budgets.

No business has absolute certainty. But the owners somehow think that certainty is their god-given right with their linkage plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->