Fast forward to January 2006 and todays NHL offer will seem generous

[PecaFan]

They should be paid adequetally for their part in a $2B business.

I missed the part where the owners were offering $10 an hour to the players. Looked they were offering them over a billion dollars, to me.

Really.. so you would spend 80 - 200 bucks to watch my 11 year old son play hockey then? Face it, the players aren't line workers at GM (no disrespect to line workers at GM) that can be replaced. You aren't paying an exorbitant amount of money to watch the game, you are paying to watch the game be played at a very high level. The players are the product.

Give me a break. Is your 11 year old a professional hockey player? No. Totally irrelevant.

Fans *will* spend $80 - $200 bucks to watch professionals. *ANY* professional. The names are irrelevant. They change constantly, new ones come in, old ones disappear, the game continues on unabated. Because the *GAME* is the product.

The players are no more the product than the actors are the movie. Yes, there are a *few* stars with better drawing power. But the vast majority of players are interchangable parts. Nobody ever went to a movie to see Howard C. Hickman. And even the big stars fade, and move on, and nobody misses them.

 

[quat]

I shouldn't say adequatally, they do get paid more than they should, but the people who say they get paid to play a game, and help run a business.

Agreed. A contract needs to be negotiated that benifits the league, and not just players or owners. Certainly we can agree that the Owners help give hockey it's highest stage on which the players can perform at the highest level. There is no reason to believe that an equiatable solution cannot be reached. Unless you start taking human nature into consideration. heh.

 

[PecaFan]

Other than the fact that they haven't drawn squat for seven years, you're right.

That team never should have been moved out of Hartford.

Carolina is fine. They're a brand new market, and have only been in their stadium for a few years. During that time, they've been around 15,000 in attendance several times.

Last year they were down because they were a crappy team. This isn't rocket science, *almost all* markets have crappy attendance when the team is lousy. Chicago, Vancouver, Pittsburgh, all of them have done the same thing.

 

[rwilson99]

i know it's hard for some people to accept, but carolina isn't a bad hockey market.

It is a horrible hockey market. Almost dead last in attendance 2 years out from a Cup Final.

Carolina is an indefensible situation right now.

 

[Lateralous]

The reputation of the NHL is already piss poor, the only thing that makes it worse is your beloved commish stepping to the podium and announcing that the season is canceled. Any momentum the NHL has in gaining most of these southern markets has been obliterrated. This is the work of Gary Bettman. Maybe if the product on the ice was better to watch, maybe if it was more attractive to a casual person, the casual fan would pay attention more. When the playoffs were on the NHL had a lousy marketing scheme for it (actually they has no marketing scheme). Commercials on ESPN had boring workers at a plant which was a boring commerical vs. the NBA having the Black Eyed Peas remaking one of the biggest songs of the year along with some former greats and Carlos Santana on it. What the hell is that? This is all a joke, and the sport won't get better until the commishioner starts taking the sport seriously. He is entrenched on this salary cap and nothing else. In reality, we're in this mess because Bettman has dnoe nothing but hurt the sport since he walked into the door. He was more concerned with expanding to the south, and keeping up with the other sports to get to a magical 30 teams. He gave teams to markets without ever truly making sure they were viable markets for hockey.

To suggest that franchise values will be made up in a short time is dilusional at best. Maybe if some of these teams had proper marketing schemes, sane business people, exposure, just some competance by the caretaker of the sport we wouldn't be in this mess, and the sport would be thriving. None of this has to do with player salaries, if it was that much of an issue 5 years ago when the owners supposedly wanted to start talking a new deal, maybe they shouldn't have given guys outrageous salaries. And now we are on the verge of doing something not even baseball has done, and that is cancel an entire season. We all saw what happened to baseball and that is America's pasttime, they still haven't completely recovered and it's 10 years later. What happens to a sport in America that's not even one of the top 4 or 5 sports as it is? It goes down the toilet is the answer and will probably be as popular cricket is.

You can take whatever side you want in CBA neogeotiations, but the fact of the matter is we're in this mess because of Gary Bettman. The players have nothing to do with all the things I just mentioned that Gary Bettman has done. Now if there is no season, you will see empty arenas. It's not because angry fans are boycotting the sport, it's because they could really care less. There were really only 3 markets doing any kind of good in the south, one is Los Angeles (they were always up and down), one is Tampa Bay (only because they won a Stanley Cup), and one is Dallas (won a Stanley Cup, but is also legitmatelly developing a viable hockey market, they have built about 25 new ice rinks, has good attendance rates and one of its hockey programs called the Texas Tornado has developed legit NHL prospects and sent them to division I hockey schools). Other than that you have Gary Bettman trying to force hockey down the throats, most of which probably don't really want it, lost a ton of money, and it's because of these markets that most people would argue shouldn't have hockey, that we are in this lockout, because fans don't care because frankly the product is not as good as it was in the 80's, teams don't make money, and therefore they want to complain they can't afford to comepete with the teams in the North.


It's really quite simple. I don't call myself pro-PA, even though I do lean to their side. I lean to their side for one reason, and that is because the owners have put in control of the sport, their business venture, a complete and utter imbicile who has absolutely no idea what he is doing.

Sorry to join late, but Amen brother!!!

 

[Trottier]

Your dear players have won alot so far.... -1billion and counting!

Thanks for validating my post!

 

[Slats432]

You can mock me if you want,

Anyone who thinks Bob Goodenow created this problem is wrong. That is not my opinion; that is a fact.

Actually, I wasn't really trying to mock you.(please don't take it that way because I always value your position and input.) But what the pro player side fails to see(And you have called yourself a moderate and you may be, but you come across as very pro player.) is the owners will say "we have a problem" and the players say..."so what?" And over the course of the agreement revenues and salaries triple, but all the players want to do is say...bad Gary, bad Gary....but Gary grew the game, Gary grew the salaries, and Gary tried to manipulate the market to meet the needs of his constituents, no differently than what Bob Goodenow has.

The players association as we all know works as a cartel. They bully their membership (Even chastise them when their contracts don't meet PA specification. Ask Primeau and Bourque about this.) and they work as a collective group to enhance the position of all of the players. I am not saying that it is bad, but when the league has suggested that the players may not be at fault but they have to be a big part of the solution, it falls on deaf ears.

The thing that bugs the hell out of me of all the crapping on of Gary Bettman is that HE helped create all the millionaires that are stabbing him in the back, and now that they have been on the gravy train for a long time, now that times are tough, there isn't any willingness to help row the boat.

I am not pro hard cap. I am pro revenue sharing and cost certainty. Even capping profit percentages and certain overages go to the players for growing the game....there is lots you can do, but the entire blame doesn't fall on either side, which was what I was trying to point out.

 

[Seachd]

The reputation of the NHL is already piss poor, the only thing that makes it worse is your beloved commish stepping to the podium and announcing that the season is canceled.

You don't think the players refusing to step on the ice for millions of dollars each is hurting the league's reputation?

 

[thinkwild]

But what the pro player side fails to see(And you have called yourself a moderate and you may be, but you come across as very pro player.) is the owners will say "we have a problem" and the players say..."so what?"

Bettman says: we have a problem.
Goodenow says: what is the problem?
Bettman: Salaries are 25% too high, payroll didparities are too large, rookie bonuses are getting out of hand, and their salaries still get too high too fast, and the owners dont have enough control over each of the leverage points in RFA negotiations.

Goodenow addressed each one of these problems with the players proposal. Resetting all the comparables is only a one time solution if its a bunch of idiots in control.

If the owners only want to pay 54% of their revenues on players, they should do so. But that isnt the same thing as each team spending 54% of its revenue on salaries - without revenue sharing.

Even Carolina can become a great hockey market. In hindsight it was easy to predict which expansion teams would do the best - the ones who achieved success. You cant judge a market until its had on ice success. NJ thus wants to relocate.

 

[kerrly]

I think what gets lost here and more often than not written off as stupidity, is that the owners are competitive, they want to win just as bad as the players in most cases. This alone will cause salaries to skyrocket. The large market teams are laughing at a proposal like that. They get the current players salaries rolled back, and they have more room under their "budget" to sign more players and even get in bidding wars. The large market teams get a deal like this and their thinking one thing........its Stanley Cup time, lets go get some free agents to acquire the team that will get us there. This would essentially, within two or three years, put the league back into the crazy inflationary spiral we've been heading down for years. And I wouldn't call them stupid to do it. If I was an owner and had the extra salary room, hell I'd do it too. The very fact that the PA will not guarantee one penny one of the proposed saving is because they fully expect these salaries to rise once again. This proposal with the joke of a luxury tax stops NOTHING.

 

[vanlady]

I think what gets lost here and more often than not written off as stupidity, is that the owners are competitive, they want to win just as bad as the players in most cases. This alone will cause salaries to skyrocket. The large market teams are laughing at a proposal like that. They get the current players salaries rolled back, and they have more room under their "budget" to sign more players and even get in bidding wars. The large market teams get a deal like this and their thinking one thing........its Stanley Cup time, lets go get some free agents to acquire the team that will get us there. This would essentially, within two or three years, put the league back into the crazy inflationary spiral we've been heading down for years. And I wouldn't call them stupid to do it. If I was an owner and had the extra salary room, hell I'd do it too. The very fact that the PA will not guarantee one penny one of the proposed saving is because they fully expect these salaries to rise once again. This proposal with the joke of a luxury tax stops NOTHING.

Owners are competative but anyone who has dealt with guys with this much money knows they are also control freeks. They control everything in there world.

I listened to Brian Burke last night and he hit it on the head. The owners are asking for way more than they need. As Burke put it, the owners want to recoup all the money they have lost over the last CBA with this CBA. So question the owners have made this mess, are they now entitled to demand the employees hand back all the money those mistakes generated? Better question, you go out and buy something you can't afford, do you now have the right to go and demand the company pay you every month until you get all the money you lost back?

 

[kerrly]

Owners are competative but anyone who has dealt with guys with this much money knows they are also control freeks. They control everything in there world.

I listened to Brian Burke last night and he hit it on the head. The owners are asking for way more than they need. As Burke put it, the owners want to recoup all the money they have lost over the last CBA with this CBA. So question the owners have made this mess, are they now entitled to demand the employees hand back all the money those mistakes generated? Better question, you go out and buy something you can't afford, do you now have the right to go and demand the company pay you every month until you get all the money you lost back?

I was responding to the post of thinkwild defending the players Dec. proposal. I agree that they are asking for too much, in the area of salary deflators. I will never change my position on a hard cap that fluctuates with the defined percentage of revenue at a reasonable level. I don't agree with the individual player cap at all, nor do I think the NHL needs to get everything they are proposing. I'm in favour of having a cap floor that all teams have to meet to have the players no get hung out to dry by teams not willing to spend. I would almost be willing to go as high as a 50% to 60% cap. I think thats fair and any team should be able to operate at that percentage of revenue without going in the red. The Oiler usually break even with a payroll that works out in the 60% range. And other than that, I would basically give the players anything else in the deal they wanted within reason. I think some owners might be trying to recoup some losses, and that I don't agree with. Thats why I'm in favour of a floor that every team has to meet.

 

[vanlady]

I was responding to the post of thinkwild defending the players Dec. proposal. I agree that they are asking for too much, in the area of salary deflators. I will never change my position on a hard cap that fluctuates with the defined percentage of revenue at a reasonable level. I don't agree with the individual player cap at all, nor do I think the NHL needs to get everything they are proposing. I'm in favour of having a cap floor that all teams have to meet to have the players no get hung out to dry by teams not willing to spend. I would almost be willing to go as high as a 50% to 60% cap. I think thats fair and any team should be able to operate at that percentage of revenue without going in the red. The Oiler usually break even with a payroll that works out in the 60% range. And other than that, I would basically give the players anything else in the deal they wanted within reason. I think some owners might be trying to recoup some losses, and that I don't agree with. Thats why I'm in favour of a floor that every team has to meet.

How about a system that pits the owners competative streak around on them. In Alberta the teams have a payroll tax that every club that comes into Alberta must pay. Edmonton and Calgary both benefit by 3 million a year.

How about we take that sytem and tweak it a bit.

For teams spending between 53 and 60% of league revenue you don't pay.
For teams below 53% you don't collect.
For teams over 60% you pay a percentage of your payroll to every team you play in there arena.

Imagine if you will Mike Ilitch having to pay Karasmanos a quarter of a million every time the Wings played NJ. Or better yet the Wings played the Blackhawks. The Wings salary would not be 77 million for long.

This would take away the PA arguement over the money and put it back in the owners court. Do you think that all the owners would make sure every penny was being accounted for to make sure they don't have to pay one another?

 

[quat]

Actually, I wasn't really trying to mock you.(please don't take it that way because I always value your position and input.) But what the pro player side fails to see(And you have called yourself a moderate and you may be, but you come across as very pro player.) is the owners will say "we have a problem" and the players say..."so what?" And over the course of the agreement revenues and salaries triple, but all the players want to do is say...bad Gary, bad Gary....but Gary grew the game, Gary grew the salaries, and Gary tried to manipulate the market to meet the needs of his constituents, no differently than what Bob Goodenow has.

The players association as we all know works as a cartel. They bully their membership (Even chastise them when their contracts don't meet PA specification. Ask Primeau and Bourque about this.) and they work as a collective group to enhance the position of all of the players. I am not saying that it is bad, but when the league has suggested that the players may not be at fault but they have to be a big part of the solution, it falls on deaf ears.

The thing that bugs the hell out of me of all the crapping on of Gary Bettman is that HE helped create all the millionaires that are stabbing him in the back, and now that they have been on the gravy train for a long time, now that times are tough, there isn't any willingness to help row the boat.

I am not pro hard cap. I am pro revenue sharing and cost certainty. Even capping profit percentages and certain overages go to the players for growing the game....there is lots you can do, but the entire blame doesn't fall on either side, which was what I was trying to point out.

Well said. Hearing Accoin in Sweden talk about how "Bettman guaranteed expansion franchise a cap", really leaves me scratching my head. I've never heard anything of the kind from anyone but players, and they all state it like the gospel truth.

I'm sure Bettman would have suggested a cap as being the best thing for the league, but it was expansion minded owners that hired Bettman in the first place. They wanted a larger and richer league... something fabulous for players.

 

[quat]

Bettman says: we have a problem.
Goodenow says: what is the problem?
Bettman: Salaries are 25% too high, payroll didparities are too large, rookie bonuses are getting out of hand, and their salaries still get too high too fast, and the owners dont have enough control over each of the leverage points in RFA negotiations.

Goodenow addressed each one of these problems with the players proposal. Resetting all the comparables is only a one time solution if its a bunch of idiots in control.

If the owners only want to pay 54% of their revenues on players, they should do so. But that isnt the same thing as each team spending 54% of its revenue on salaries - without revenue sharing.

Even Carolina can become a great hockey market. In hindsight it was easy to predict which expansion teams would do the best - the ones who achieved success. You cant judge a market until its had on ice success. NJ thus wants to relocate.

You know, beyond the one or two idiots, there exists problems that simply aren't addressed by these offers. Team revenue disparity, the fact that the NHL is a competitive league and the fact that owners aren't allowed to collude to keep salaries low. A wealthy team has every right to spend what is in their budget. The fact they will always have twice as much money to spend gives them a huge advantage, and one which they are foolish not to use. Hey, the more they win the happier the fans the more money coming in. Calling all big spending teams idiots is far too simple.

 

[kerrly]

How about a system that pits the owners competative streak around on them. In Alberta the teams have a payroll tax that every club that comes into Alberta must pay. Edmonton and Calgary both benefit by 3 million a year.

How about we take that sytem and tweak it a bit.

For teams spending between 53 and 60% of league revenue you don't pay.
For teams below 53% you don't collect.
For teams over 60% you pay a percentage of your payroll to every team you play in there arena.

Imagine if you will Mike Ilitch having to pay Karasmanos a quarter of a million every time the Wings played NJ. Or better yet the Wings played the Blackhawks. The Wings salary would not be 77 million for long.

This would take away the PA arguement over the money and put it back in the owners court. Do you think that all the owners would make sure every penny was being accounted for to make sure they don't have to pay one another?

Creative idea I'll give you that, but I see two problems with it. Teams will be crying about the schedule, in some form or another. And I highly doubt the owners will accept anything like that. I don't see why just having a cap set at these levels is any worse. Sure it gives teams a little more freedom on the numbers, but from what I understand, if a team is over it will cost them a draft pick, or some other form of punishment which I'm sure some owners would rather risk for a Cup run than handing out cold hard cash.

 

[vanlady]

Creative idea I'll give you that, but I see two problems with it. Teams will be crying about the schedule, in some form or another. And I highly doubt the owners will accept anything like that. I don't see why just having a cap set at these levels is any worse. Sure it gives teams a little more freedom on the numbers, but from what I understand, if a team is over it will cost them a draft pick, or some other form of punishment which I'm sure some owners would rather risk for a Cup run than handing out cold hard cash.

Why should the employees bear the entire responsibility to clean up this mess? The players will never believe the owners numbers, they shouldn't with all the history between these parties. Put the responsibility back where it belongs. This will also ensure that the numbers being generated are real. Trust me the owners will watch each other like hawks to make sure they are reporting all revenues.

 

[snakepliskin]

the only problem the canes have right now is they are rebuilding (and are off to a good rebuild at that) they got old really quick and definitely had a playoff hangover after the cup run and oneill could'nt hit the side of a barn last year, but the young guys they've acquired the last couple of years are pretty impressive especially staal-justin williams-cam ward-radim vrbata bruno st.jaques plus already steady erik cole and joe vasicek plus d man danny richmond and this yrs pick andrew ladd in the wings. the transition of going from francis and irbe to the young guys has been pretty painful to watch but weekend games would draw over 15k last year and will get better. the canes have a real sweet deal with the arena. it's a new building that fills out to 19k and when the team was winning sold out regularly-there are a lot of southern boys who have seen the light and have been converted to the religion of the puck but the aftermath of this money war is going to damage all markets including ours. but i will give credit to the organization for keeping ticket holders informed and they have had several local events for us also incl providing free tix and transportation to watch our ahl team in lowell play in norfolk. we need our young guys to mature and o'neill and brindamore to regain their health and normal game and the crowds will grow. the southern teams i would be concerned with are the thrashers panthers and predators. atlanta is a tough sell for any team the braves would'nt even sell out in their best years

 

[quat]

Why should the employees bear the entire responsibility to clean up this mess? The players will never believe the owners numbers, they shouldn't with all the history between these parties. Put the responsibility back where it belongs. This will also ensure that the numbers being generated are real. Trust me the owners will watch each other like hawks to make sure they are reporting all revenues.

Responsible is the wrong word. Any realistic look at revenue streams indicate that on average the players are presently overpaid, and this imbalance is suggested to be at the root of the problem in the NHL. You may not agree with this, but Ownership certainly does. They are trying to get their ship in order running on this assumption.

Limiting the exponential growth of salaries while not folding any teams is likely what the league is after. More than 50% of income generated is a pretty fricken good deal all things considered. It is however, less than they have now...which obviously in the smaller picture, makes it look like the players are being robbed. 10 years from now, when the league is healthy and more money is being generated, the players will be happy to sign the same contract again.

 

[vanlady]

Responsible is the wrong word. Any realistic look at revenue streams indicate that on average the players are presently overpaid, and this imbalance is suggested to be at the root of the problem in the NHL. You may not agree with this, but Ownership certainly does. They are trying to get their ship in order running on this assumption.

Limiting the exponential growth of salaries while not folding any teams is likely what the league is after. More than 50% of income generated is a pretty fricken good deal all things considered. It is however, less than they have now...which obviously in the smaller picture, makes it look like the players are being robbed. 10 years from now, when the league is healthy and more money is being generated, the players will be happy to sign the same contract again.

Do you realize I made this very same arguement in 94, talk about deja vue. Unfortuanately after 94 I don't trust the owners, these guys did not become millionaires by being stupid. There is no way you will sell me that Charles Wang is losing the money he says he is, why because he used the "I'm losing money" card with CA and we all know that was a bold faced lie.

Folding teams, thanks to the lockout is going to happen, get over it. The business editor for espn.com has already said that there are small market teams that have been notified by there banks that when the lockout is over they will not refinance them, where are they going to get the capital to start up again. Don't say from there other businesses, that is why McNall and Rigas are in jail, the IRS very much frowns on it.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

One huge difference. Bettman assured that the owners can not divide into groups of haves and have nots in any way that will undermine negotiations. The Detroits of the world can scream but they gave Bettman the power to implement whatever system he can, including revenue sharing. Baseball never gave Selig that power, and therefore the owners split everytime and caved.

i suppose thought it only takes 50%+1 to fire him.

although, i dont see that happening, it could. which lessons the power of that 8 vote issue.

dr

 

[quat]

Do you realize I made this very same arguement in 94, talk about deja vue. Unfortuanately after 94 I don't trust the owners, these guys did not become millionaires by being stupid. There is no way you will sell me that Charles Wang is losing the money he says he is, why because he used the "I'm losing money" card with CA and we all know that was a bold faced lie.

Folding teams, thanks to the lockout is going to happen, get over it. The business editor for espn.com has already said that there are small market teams that have been notified by there banks that when the lockout is over they will not refinance them, where are they going to get the capital to start up again. Don't say from there other businesses, that is why McNall and Rigas are in jail, the IRS very much frowns on it.

Well... I don't really have anything to get over, but thanks for the suggestion .

Looks like you were on the wrong side of the equation both times...

Whether a particular owner is overstating his losses isn't really the issue IMO. There are losses, they are definitive and they need to be addressed. As for teams folding... I'll see it when it happens. If what you say is true, it should make your position (if I understand it correctly), even more untenable.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Do you realize I made this very same arguement in 94, talk about deja vue. Unfortuanately after 94 I don't trust the owners, these guys did not become millionaires by being stupid. There is no way you will sell me that Charles Wang is losing the money he says he is, why because he used the "I'm losing money" card with CA and we all know that was a bold faced lie.

Folding teams, thanks to the lockout is going to happen, get over it. The business editor for espn.com has already said that there are small market teams that have been notified by there banks that when the lockout is over they will not refinance them, where are they going to get the capital to start up again. Don't say from there other businesses, that is why McNall and Rigas are in jail, the IRS very much frowns on it.

I will tell you franchises folding will not happen. Once the new world order is in place many rich men looking for a toy will want to be a part of the NHL. Teams may not stay in their current area but they will not just fade into oblivion. Where is the article that this business editor from espn.com appears in?

 

[vanlady]

I will tell you franchises folding will not happen. Once the new world order is in place many rich men looking for a toy will want to be a part of the NHL. Teams may not stay in their current area but they will not just fade into oblivion. Where is the article that this business editor from espn.com appears in?

He was on Bob McCown Prime Time Sports on Sportsnet. Even Bob was surprised. Oh by the way it was yesterdays show.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

He was on Bob McCown Prime Time Sports on Sportsnet. Even Bob was surprised. Oh by the way it was yesterdays show.

What did Bob say?