vanlady
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2004
- 810
- 0
Even they think that Bettman never wanted a deal
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/hockey/article/0,1406,KNS_323_3555234,00.html
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/hockey/article/0,1406,KNS_323_3555234,00.html
why must the payrolls be close? the empirical data simply doesn't support that assertion!AM said:Bettman wanted a deal, a deal where they wouldnt lose money every year and where they could grow the sport.
Its the grow the sport part that people cant understand, and why most economic evaluations dont take into account.....the payrolls of the teams have to be close!
Unfortuneately, the players wanted to grow their salaries more then play so there wasnt going to be any deal.
So yes, Bettman was the only one looking for a deal.
AM said:Bettman wanted a deal, a deal where they wouldnt lose money every year and where they could grow the sport.
Its the grow the sport part that people cant understand, and why most economic evaluations dont take into account.....the payrolls of the teams have to be close!
Unfortuneately, the players wanted to grow their salaries more then play so there wasnt going to be any deal.
So yes, Bettman was the only one looking for a deal.
Well , thats not entirely accurate. Bettman was the only one who was trying for a deal that he thought would work for the owners & players. I sincerly believe that if the players had their way (& in fact history bares that out), the players have been more than happy to have the teams continue to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, & in the process dstroy some teams as well as jobs.likea said:Bettman was the only one trying for a deal
vanlady said:OK explain to me how taking a 24% paycut shows players want to grow there salaries??
Because they wouldn't agree to a system that would keep help to keep salaries at that level or even close to it.vanlady said:OK explain to me how taking a 24% paycut shows players want to grow there salaries??
Cause they knew would eventually get all the money back & more & if their wasnt a rollback of some kind this year, they had zero chance of of playing, therby costing them lots of $$$. It was selfish & hollow, thru & thru.vanlady said:OK explain to me how taking a 24% paycut shows players want to grow there salaries??
MOEBEAGLE said:It seems to me that some people believe whatever LORD Goodenow SPOUTS. Why is it if anyone disagrees with his holiness some believe they do not know what they are talking about? I just want to know who died and made him the all knowing god ?
richardn said:Your joking right.
mooseOAK said:Because they wouldn't agree to a system that would keep help to keep salaries at that level or even close to it.
how can you defend such a position?Sammy said:Cause they knew would eventually get all the money back & more & if their wasnt a rollback of some kind this year, they had zero chance of of playing, therby costing them lots of $$$. It was selfish & hollow, thru & thru.
PepNCheese said:Don't worry, I'm sure everyone will soon be shouting down the economists because they're idiots who "don't get it".
So, I guesss the Owners should have just agreed to any cap number , right.vanlady said:Did they not agree to a cap??? And so what you are saying is that the owners you defend have no intention of curbing there bad habits that got us in this mess in the first place???? OK the owners got us in this mess and they have no intention of correcting there mistakes, boy I would sure defend that.
Yeah, the $49 million soft cap. As Bettman said , the NFL with 2.5 times the revenue of the NHL has an $80 million cap so in relative terms hockey should be at just over $30 million.vanlady said:Did they not agree to a cap??? And so what you are saying is that the owners you defend have no intention of curbing there bad habits that got us in this mess in the first place???? OK the owners got us in this mess and they have no intention of correcting there mistakes, boy I would sure defend that.
joechip said:No, I just wonder about their credentials: Keynesian, Monetarist, Austrian.... Most of the comments in that article were opinions that had no economic backing that I could discern... and I consider myself an economist (self-taught, but one nonetheless). The comments made sounded more like sour grapes and ideology than anything.
Ta,
I am nor arguing that the 24% wasnt deflationary. It just wouldnt have had much of an effect for very long, even with those other hollow gifts.nedved93 said:how can you defend such a position?
for anyone willing to see it, the PRIMARY cause of salary inflation and hence the problems inflating this league's cost structure, is the arbitration and qualifier system - that is unquestionable!
consider the arbitration system carefully. this is a system that awards contracts based on a range of comparables. if that range is reduced by 24% how can that not be viewed as substantially deflationary, particularly if its combined with two-way, final offer arbitration, 75% qualifiers, and reforms to the ELS!!??
joechip said:No, I just wonder about their credentials: Keynesian, Monetarist, Austrian.... Most of the comments in that article were opinions that had no economic backing that I could discern... and I consider myself an economist (self-taught, but one nonetheless). The comments made sounded more like sour grapes and ideology than anything.
Ta,
mooseOAK said:Yeah, the $49 million soft cap. As Bettman said , the NFL with 2.5 times the revenue of the NHL has an $80 million cap so in relative terms hockey should be at just over $30 million.
Yes, the owners had intention of curbing their bad habits, but the players wouldn't let them.
PepNCheese said:Thanks for proving my point.
when combined with two-way, final offer arbitration, 75% qualifiers, and reform of the ELS along the lines proposed by TSN?Sammy said:I am nor arguing that the 24% wasnt deflationary. It just wouldnt have had much of an effect for very long, even with those other hollow gifts.
Maybe the NHLPA should have back stopped their magnanimous gesture if they were so sure it would have such a great effect.