You saying you don't gamble, you can't afford it and your personal beliefs about gambling is an anology to a salary cap?vanlady said:
Doug McLean on the FAN590
- Thread starter Juni
- Start date
- Status
... and a 10 million dollar difference is far better then a 20 million.vanlady said:
What's your point?
If you don't recognize that the NHL is trying to minimize the paridy (thus 42.5 million vs. 49 million), then oh wow...
kenabnrmal
Registered User
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Splatman Phanutier said:
I don't think its odd, I'm just trying to show some of the ridiculousness of parity. I thought the reason to fix the CBA was to stop big market team from spending huge amounts like the Rangers, Wings, Avs, etc. Thats that a salary cap in the 40's does does it not? If a team like Predators doesn't spend 40 million now why would a salary cap make them all of a sudden spend the cap limit? I thought the reason most fans WANTED a cap was to give their teams a chance to keep up with the large market teams and compete. Well in my mind a Salary cap around 45 does JUST THAT. If your team can't reach that level oh well, you can still easily field a team of 30 mill that is able to beat a team of 45 mill in payroll. It bridges the gap of equality between teams and still lets teams who's owners want to spend a little more to win do just THAT. As Mark Cuban says, if you're buying a sports franchise with the purpose of making money, you shouldn't be in the business anyway. I see nothing unfair with a cap in the 40's.
Splatman Phanutier said:
No the analogy is don't spend what you can't afford. Heck even rookie hedge fund managers know how to balance risk you would think a bunch of billionaires would have figured it out
kenabnrmal said:
I go to lunch at the local casino, the guys who work for me think I have a gambling problem, but man they make the best chicken club.
I don't think its odd, I'm just trying to show some of the ridiculousness of parity.
I fail to see your argument in that post.
I thought the reason to fix the CBA was to stop big market team from spending huge amounts like the Rangers, Wings, Avs, etc.
No, I think your totally missing the point of the lockout and negotiations. The reaosn to fix the CBA was to ensure that there are 30 NHL teams that are competitive and economically viable. Obviously, there will never be an even playing field, but the objective of the league to to create as much equality as possible.
Thats that a salary cap in the 40's does does it not?
Did this sentence actually make sense to anyone?
If a team like Predators doesn't spend 40 million now why would a salary cap make them all of a sudden spend the cap limit?
No, thats not the point. The point of the salary cap being a magnet was that it would draw the medium markets to cap, not the small markets.
Well in my mind a Salary cap around 45 does JUST THAT.
On what basis, really? Have you seen the owners books? Have you seen how much each team makes and loses? Do you know what each teams breaking point is? If not, then how could you possibly have any idea what will make the league competitive and viable? Did it not occur to you that if the 45 was ok or their breaking point, that it would be their final offer?
If your team can't reach that level oh well, you can still easily field a team of 30 mill that is able to beat a team of 45 mill in payroll.
The point isn't *just* the ability of teams to compete for FA's. Again, you fail to recognize the situation. The problem is that others teams who sign their players to insane figures sets a bar for other teams to sign their players by. If teams have more money to spend and they do spend more money, suddenly the bar is raised for the smaller markets to sign their players.
As Mark Cuban says, if you're buying a sports franchise with the purpose of making money, you shouldn't be in the business anyway.
What the hell? Exctly which team do you think is looking to make money from owning a sports franchise? Once again you fail to recognize the issues surrounding the situation. The problem isn't to make money, its to minimize the loses. Good grief.
I fail to see your argument in that post.
I thought the reason to fix the CBA was to stop big market team from spending huge amounts like the Rangers, Wings, Avs, etc.
No, I think your totally missing the point of the lockout and negotiations. The reaosn to fix the CBA was to ensure that there are 30 NHL teams that are competitive and economically viable. Obviously, there will never be an even playing field, but the objective of the league to to create as much equality as possible.
Thats that a salary cap in the 40's does does it not?
Did this sentence actually make sense to anyone?
If a team like Predators doesn't spend 40 million now why would a salary cap make them all of a sudden spend the cap limit?
No, thats not the point. The point of the salary cap being a magnet was that it would draw the medium markets to cap, not the small markets.
Well in my mind a Salary cap around 45 does JUST THAT.
On what basis, really? Have you seen the owners books? Have you seen how much each team makes and loses? Do you know what each teams breaking point is? If not, then how could you possibly have any idea what will make the league competitive and viable? Did it not occur to you that if the 45 was ok or their breaking point, that it would be their final offer?
If your team can't reach that level oh well, you can still easily field a team of 30 mill that is able to beat a team of 45 mill in payroll.
The point isn't *just* the ability of teams to compete for FA's. Again, you fail to recognize the situation. The problem is that others teams who sign their players to insane figures sets a bar for other teams to sign their players by. If teams have more money to spend and they do spend more money, suddenly the bar is raised for the smaller markets to sign their players.
As Mark Cuban says, if you're buying a sports franchise with the purpose of making money, you shouldn't be in the business anyway.
What the hell? Exctly which team do you think is looking to make money from owning a sports franchise? Once again you fail to recognize the issues surrounding the situation. The problem isn't to make money, its to minimize the loses. Good grief.
Did it never occur to you that teams have to spend what other teams set the bar at?vanlady said:
Muleskinner
Registered User
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
Whether you care about the other leagues or not, the NHL should be. The fact is that the NFL is the model every league should follow. You know what makes them so different from other sports leagues? Their PA is completly run by former players for one, (no lawers, or businessmen). 2nd, They have a real partnership and a thing the NHL has none of......TRUST. 3rd, They have a BIG revenue pot to share between themselves. Plenty of money to go around.
Splatman Phanutier said:
OK so instead of developing strong business and marketing stratagies before you build your team and having a 5 year business plan, is not good business in the NHL, cause that is how Vancouver became successful. What 6 years ago after we dumped Messiers salary we were in the bottom 10 of payroll. Look at where we are now, why? because our owner sat down with our management and devised a plan before he went stupid on payroll.
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
espn actually investigated and came to the conclusion baseball has just as much, if not more parity than the nfl. My favorite part of Maclean's rant was when he said he had a 4th line winger make more money than his owner.SerbianEagle said:
Splatman Phanutier said:
OK very slowly should teams develop a sound marketing and business plan, before they go stupid on payroll. Or should they just keep up with the jones and pray they make money
Do you think the Calgary Flames go stupid on payroll?vanlady said:
Do you think the Edmonton Oilers go stupid on payroll?
Do you think the Ottawa Senators go stupid on payroll? (Besides Daigle's)
Do you think the Nashville Predators go stupid on payroll?
There you go: 4 teams that would find $2.5 million difference in cap - even if they don't spend it - to be a big deal between compeitiveness, and in some cases, life or death for the organization.
vanlady said:
Unlike hedge fund managers, however, general managers have a goal that isn't always congruous with being profitable -- it's called winning. The billionaires have figured it out and are setting out to solve the problem. Now if only they were allowed...
Splatman Phanutier said:
No but there business and marketing stratagies leave a great deal to be desired. Calgary has what the highest corporate headquarters in western Canada and they can't get decent sponsorship deals, give your head a shake. Nashville shouldn't be where it is, you would think that when Bettman gave out franchises he could have at least balanced non traditional markets with traditional markets.
Ottawa is still suffering the Briden hangover but should in a couple of years be fine and Edmonton, well they still haven't recovered from the Peter Puck stupidity, not to mention they need a new building.
Calgary has what the highest corporate headquarters in western Canada and they can't get decent sponsorship deals, give your head a shake.
Excuse me? Do you even understand the situation?
Please, if you do, why not tell me. This should be a good laugh.
Nashville shouldn't be where it is, you would think that when Bettman gave out franchises he could have at least balanced non traditional markets with traditional markets.
You catch this, nomorekids?
Ottawa is still suffering the Briden hangover but should in a couple of years be fine and Edmonton, well they still haven't recovered from the Peter Puck stupidity, not to mention they need a new building.
Please tell me your astute evaluation of Calgary and the Flames organization isn't anything like this one.
Excuse me? Do you even understand the situation?
Please, if you do, why not tell me. This should be a good laugh.
Nashville shouldn't be where it is, you would think that when Bettman gave out franchises he could have at least balanced non traditional markets with traditional markets.
You catch this, nomorekids?
Ottawa is still suffering the Briden hangover but should in a couple of years be fine and Edmonton, well they still haven't recovered from the Peter Puck stupidity, not to mention they need a new building.
Please tell me your astute evaluation of Calgary and the Flames organization isn't anything like this one.
vanlady said:
You mean well-run clubs like Chicago and Boston? The ones that faithfully stick to a budget? Something tells me that the ownership for those clubs isn't universally praised for that tactic.
Pretending that the profitability of a hockey franchise is the only goal is grossly dishonest.
Splatman Phanutier said:
Oh I think I understand the business side far better than you do. Corporate sponsorship is what is making Vancouver the money it is making. Do you have a clue what some corporate sponsors pay a year??? Butts in the seats don't pay the bills corporate sponsor and TV do.
Seriously, if you do, then please, give me full run down on why the Calgary Flames arn't successful.vanlady said:
Put up or shut up. You run on and on without backing up any of your points or have shown little to no understanding of the lockout, the goals of the league and the PA and/or of the Calgary Flames.
nomorekids
The original, baby
Splatman Phanutier said:
Give me some credit, dude. I stopped paying attention to Vanlady's NHLPA ra-ra'ing a loooong time ago. Given some of the other things I've heard from this person, the opinion doesn't carry much weight with me.
Well thanks bud, you could have given me a heads up herenomorekids said:Give me some credit, dude. I stopped paying attention to Vanlady's NHLPA ra-ra'ing a loooong time ago. Given some of the other things I've heard from this person, the opinion doesn't carry much weight with me.
I was starting to wonder why I was the only moron watching her try to pull her head out of her behind.
Muleskinner
Registered User
corporate sponsors pay a year??? Butts in the seats don't pay the bills corporate sponsor and TV do.
The TV dollars are fading away for this sport, and with it is the money the PA could have had in a CBA deal. When Bettman said the offer would only be less later, this is what he was talking about.
The TV dollars are fading away for this sport, and with it is the money the PA could have had in a CBA deal. When Bettman said the offer would only be less later, this is what he was talking about.
- Status
