Free Market??????

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by SPARTAKUS*, Oct 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    Players say that they want to play in a free market, they don't want a salary cap? Alright then no cap. NO GUARANTED CONTRACT, no salary arbitration. You perform you get the big bucks otherwise you get cut. Why is it that when a player is playing the last year of his contract huge season after that he signs a fat contract then nothing so you can't blame the fans and the owners to feel cheated.
    So the owners are ready to gave the players their free market. Let's see if the players really want a free market or what they want is the NHLPA free market???
     
  2. Onion Boy

    Onion Boy Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Unemployed
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    The players don't want a hard cap, there's a difference. Also, I bet the players would be willing to concede lower base, higher incentive-laden contracts if it would help resolve the labor dispute.
     
  3. Add NO NHLPA and no CBA. Make them independent contractors, free to sign wherever they want for as long as they want.
     
  4. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,668
    Likes Received:
    1,281
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    Seems to me that the players want the best of all worlds! Guaranteed contracts,big $$$ contracts, free agency, free market system, and yes as they get nearing the age of 30 they want to be dealt to a Cup Contender that pays the big bucks!!! They will never go for a real free market system... they don't have the ball$!!
     
  5. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    Blong7 you're damn right my man :handclap: the players have to understand that they are the one who as to give a little more this time around. I am sure there is a deal to be made here cause if the entire NHL season is cancelled the players will a big time loser. They will have a new set of rules ramed down their throat coming next season.
     
  6. Onion Boy

    Onion Boy Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Unemployed
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    The owners don't care if the entire season is cancelled. The owners of weaker clubs claim that they'll lose less money during a lockout, and I'm sure the owners of richer clubs are hoping that an extended lockout will kill off a couple low-end franchise to limit the amount of revenue-sharing the league will have to implement when it starts up again.

    My personal theory is that the owners who voted unanimously in favor of a lockout didn't all do so with identical intentions. Surely none of you think they did it for the fans.
     
  7. RLC

    RLC Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Retired VP-Telco
    Location:
    Montreal
    I am with you, let the players pay for thier own insurance, hotels, air fare, food, sticks. pads and such. Yup let them get paid for every goal, penilty kill, blocked shot, fight ( if you win ) team bonus for winning the game, hummmmmm
    this sounds like a regular guy factory job:)

    THe NHPLA stands behind a total free market, BUL**** because they know the anti trust laws they stand behind will not let the owners dictate the salaries as it will be colusion. So what the reality is the NHLPA want the right to exploite the rich owners and to hell with the broke ones. If an owner goes broke then it must be because he is a bad business man.

    As for the Nhlpa WANTING A LUX TAX, well lets see, let the rich over spending owners spend even more money and give some to the poor owners. So the top players get his huger contract if a rich owners wants him and by the way the poor owner will have more money to pay bigger contracts to his players.

    so it's bigger contracts all arround for the players in ither case.

    The NHL is losing money and the players don't give a **** as long as they continue to get hugh and hugher contracts

    My question is, what garenteed rollback of salarie is the NHLPA player willing to accept his big contract due to a 30-40 goal year if the next year he only score 15.
    Players are just like independant contractors. So in the real world if I will pay a contractor 500,000 to build me a house and he does not I dont pay him. What the Players have is,"pay me the league average of 1.8 million and I will try to earn it but if I dont, I get the money anyway" tough luck on you. Who the frig would sign this contract in the real world. By the way in the real world you can sue a contractor so why can't the ownes sue the players who does not preform as his pay level or even better an owner should have the right to sue an oposing player for any intent to injure for assault and if the owner suffers a 4 month loss of his player and that converts to mabey 5 million in gate reciepts then SUE the instigator
    for the 5 million. Lets really see if the NHLPA want that "free market system" or not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2004
  8. Psycho Papa Joe

    Psycho Papa Joe Porkchop Hoser

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    23,349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Forensic Accountant
    Location:
    Cesspool, Ontario
    Home Page:
    I strongly agree with the general sentiment of this thread. The NHLPA saying they want a free market system is far and away the weakest part of their argument, and smacks of hypocrisy. They should stick with the argument that the NHL is substantially understating hockey related revenues such as parking, concessions and merchandise sales, and because the owners are a bunch of lieing hose bags, their numbers can't be relied upon.
     
  9. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    The owners aren't willing to give the players a free market, but the players can have that if they want. All they have to do is decertify and disband the union.

    The individual owners could negotiate any of the provisions you suggest they should negotiate. If the Toronto Maple Leafs want to insist the player gets to the road games himself and buy his own uniform, they would be able to do so. They would not have to guarantee a contract either.

    On the other hand, the players would be able to negiotiate a contract with anyone. No amateur draft. An auction for Sidney Crosby. Players would become unrestricted free agents from age 18.

    Do you honestly think players will end up paying their own airfare?

    Tom
     
  10. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,188
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    If that happens, couldn't the NHL just shut down until a new union gets formed, and a decent CBA gets worked out with them?
     
  11. RLC

    RLC Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Retired VP-Telco
    Location:
    Montreal
    Does your boss send a car to your home to bring you to work every morning ? Does he pay for your gas? No, he says" it's up to you to get to work on time" or else !!
     
  12. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I'm not Sidney Crosby with 30 teams throwing money and other benefits at me.

    Tom
     
  13. Bicycle Repairman

    Bicycle Repairman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Should they deal with the Devil they know or the Devil they don't?

    The NHLPA is perfectly ameniable to working out a decent CBA.
     
  14. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,188
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    That's super, but it doesn't answer my question. I'm talking about if the union disbands.
     
  15. RLC

    RLC Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Retired VP-Telco
    Location:
    Montreal
    All I am saying is that the NHLPA has been masterful at creating a shark like feeding frenzy in a bidding war for the best players. I have heard lots of players say don't blame me if the owner over bid or shove tons of perks at me to get me.
    The owners know best what they can afford and who am I not to agree.

    When players point to other players contracts in order to get a big raise what they want is. " look the other owner pays 4 million for a 25 goal scorer" If you don't give me the same then you are trying to cheat me, " I want you to be another stupid over bidding owner and give me MORE MONEY"
     
  16. bling

    bling Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is it that the NHLPA creates this feeding frenzy? It is the Team owners that we see at the tables on draft day salivating over the draftees. They are the ones fighting one another for the right to throw money at 18 year old kids.

    The concept of arbitration is what allows a player from one team to use the stupidity of one owner to get another owner to pay him more...this was a negotiated item and agreed to by all parties involved so to whine and snivel about it in retrospect only makes the owners look even dumber.
     
  17. Bicycle Repairman

    Bicycle Repairman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Oh, you mean decertification? Heavens no, the NHL wouldn't want that. Individual players could then sue the league under anti-trust legislation over things like the entry draft, restricted status, salary caps and such. Quite a mess, you see. A "new" union wouldn't just pop up out of nowhere overnight either. The whole process would be fairly time consuming and expensive. Look what happened with the NBA in 1995. As soon as the NBPA threatened to decertify, the league backed off on some of its demands.

    The NHL would be much, much better off dealing with the NHLPA.
     
  18. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,188
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    But isn't that if the league goes ahead? If the union decertifies, why can't the league just shut down? No games, no players, no contracts, no lawsuits, nothing. Invite players who would like to play within a system that's fair and economically healthy to both sides to form a union.

    Like you said, it probably couldn't happen in any sort of hurry, but in the end, it might be worth it for the NHL.
     
  19. Bicycle Repairman

    Bicycle Repairman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    What? Thirty teams start from scratch? Re-incorporate? Even discounting the myriad legal obstacles by way of anti-trust laws, that's still quite the undertaking. What happens to the ownership groups who have arena leases? Their landlords (some of whom are municipal and county governments) wouldn't be too happy about having to re-deal with the same bunch of guys with new office letterhead. Why, they'd be mummified in red tape out of spite! Some of those sweetheart deals might be rescinded for all the bother it caused. Corporate sponsors might be plenty peeved too. Be quite the shambles.
     
  20. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,188
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    Not from scratch. Like a lockout. Suspend operations until something happens that they like.
     
  21. bling

    bling Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, don't you mean "hold their breath until their faces turn blue"?
     
  22. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,188
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    Ok?
     
  23. RLC

    RLC Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Retired VP-Telco
    Location:
    Montreal
    The owners did not expect or envision the arbitration process to take such a toll.
    The past is the past. But I might add that we were not prive to the negotations at the time and don't know if the league wanted also the right to invoke arbitration on a player that no longer produces. So it became a one way deal. The owners have paid dearly for some mistakes. So the players get to keep money. Going forward well it's a whole new ball game. It's time to stop losing money. Some clubs lose money outright, some clubs end up making just a little. So little that the top paid player may make more money then the owner. It's the owner that risks his money not the player. If the players would risk money at the same level then the owners you might find the NHLPA singing a different tune.

    One more thing. The NHLPA does not trust the owners bookeeping and so uses this excuse to insinuate that the owners hide money and refuse a CAP. This is crap.
    for years the NHL wanted the NHLPA to join them in the bookeeping so this issue would be put to rest. But no, the NHLPA refused but still constantly insinuates fraud. This whole question is easily fixed. A joint bookeeping and any owner caught hideing money pays the same amount in penilty to the NHLPA retirement fund. So now bring on the dam CAP and be done with it. But the NHLPA would never agree to this so it's all moot.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2004
  24. bling

    bling Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If this CBA is and was such a bad deal why was it twice extended? If the owners have been bled dry by this CBA for 10 years why was it twice extended? If all the teams have been losing so much money for all these years, why was it twice extended?

    Oh..nevermind, I know! It was because they did not want to disrupt the great expansion plan. Gary Bettman had to twist the arms of the owners and talk them into continuing to extend a CBA that was not in their best interest twice because he wanted to squeeze as much expansion money as possible out of the new team owners. I am sure each time he told the disgruntled owners, "Don't worry as soon as we get all the expansion fees we possibly can, then we will lock the doors on those greedy bastards and make them give back some of the money you guys have been throwing at them hand over fist for the last ten years!"

    It's all about greed, but surprisingly enough it is not about player greed as you have been spoonfed and manipulated into believing but owner greed.
     
  25. Winger98

    Winger98 powers combined

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,042
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Cleveland
    Home Page:
    If the messed up arbitration process clearly played such a large role in escalating salaries, why don't the owners just look to fix that? Instead, they have this ridiculously intractible stance of "cap or nothing" that is wholly unrealistic. It took ten years for the league to (supposedly, as I still don't entirely trust they are losing as much as they claim) get to this point. It won't be fixed over night. The owners should be looking for moderate concessions to fix a few obvious wrongs (arbitration, rookie bonus loopholes, etc.) and to set up a positive environment for further changes in the next CBA negotiations.

    I don't give the players a free pass for the mess that is the cba negotiations, but the owners could have likely won some significant CBA battles, given up relatively little and had the season start on time if they had been reasonable. The game of chicken the league and players are engaging in right now stands a good chance of killing them both.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"